Ron Silver Slams Hollywood's Hypocrisy on Human Rights

Not every movie star is a Barbra Streisand or Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins or Ben Affleck or Martin Sheen. There's one liberal in Hollywood who's liberal enough to expose the Tinseltown left's reactionary stand against human rights.

In case you missed actor Ron Silver's searing speech Monday at the Republican National Convention, here's the text:

I want to thank the president and the Republican Party for holding this event in my hometown, my father's hometown, my grandfather's and great grandfather's birthplace.

Just over 1,000 days ago, 2,605 of my neighbors were murdered at the World Trade Center - men, women and children - as they began their day on a brilliantly clear New York autumn morning, less than four miles from where I am now standing.

We will never forgive. Never forget. Never excuse!

At the end of World War II, General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander of the South Pacific, said:

"It is my earnest hope - indeed the hope of all mankind - that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past, a world found upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice."

The hope he expressed then remains relevant today.

We are again engaged in a war that will define the future of humankind. Responding to attacks on our soil, America has led a coalition of countries against extremists who want to destroy our way of life and our values.

This is a war we did not seek.

This is a war waged against us.

This is a war to which we had to respond.

History shows that we are not imperialists, but we are fighters for freedom and democracy.

Even though I am a well-recognized liberal on many issues confronting our society today, I find it ironic that many human rights advocates and outspoken members of my own entertainment community are often on the front lines to protest repression, for which I applaud them, but they are usually the first ones to oppose any use of force to take care of these horrors that they catalogue repeatedly.

Under the unwavering leadership of President Bush, the cause of freedom and democracy is being advanced by the courageous men and women serving in our armed services.

The president is doing exactly the right thing. That is why we need this president at this time!

I am grateful for the chance to speak tonight to express my support for our commander in chief, for our brave troops, and for the vital cause which they have undertaken.

General Dwight Eisenhower's statement of 60 years ago is true today: "United in this determination and with unshakable faith in the cause for which we fight, we will, with God's help, go forward to our greatest victory."

Thank you.

The 9/11 commission said there was no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq so if Bush or his supporters claim the Iraq war is part of the war on terror, they are lying.

And if they claim US is liberating the people of Iraq - they are either trying to lie to themselves or think their audience is not too bright.  I believe it is the latter.

Which is something your brothers from Deliveranceville will never have to be worry being accused of.

That Ron Silver hates muslims, and is celebrating the death of tens of thousands of innocent muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Unfortunately, this ugly and no-talent moron, is someone you quote.  

Let's look at his unremarkable speech:

"History shows that we are not imperialists, but we are fighters for freedom and democracy."

Are you telling me the jerk doesn't know that:

1) In 1953 we overthrew the democratically elected Government of Dr. Mossadegh in Iran, installing that corrupt blood sucker the Shah.  This was done on behalf of oil companies, specifically British Petroleum

2) In 1962, we overthrew the democratically elected Government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, and replaced it with another dictator, Colonel Carlos Castillo.  On behalf of United Fruit Company.  

3] In 1973, we overthrew the democratically elected Government of Salvador Allende, replaced him with that butcher, Pinochet.  On behalf of ITT, then involved in copper business

For those poorly schooled Republicans here, with miserable grasp of the obvious, these acts are usually called Imperialistic!!!  Not good for development of democracy and freedom!!!

Got it???  Good!

"I Prefer To Take Swings At Issues & Policy, Not Posters (end) --- Number 6"

Right. Maybe instead of "too intellectual", we can accurately change it to "too hypocritical".  

RLTW

But then again no one would ever accuse the American public in general of being too bright to begin with!!  If they were this great nation wouldn't have had Gore, Bush, and Kerry in the last 4 years vying to be leaders of the world!!!!!!!!!11

  Yes this great nation was once a true fighter of democracy and freedom and post WW2 Europe if living proof of it.  
  We have also in the past 50 years supported, financed, protected, and legitimized some of the most brutal, corrupt, oppressive regimes around the world all in the name of "strategic importance."  
   The world has many many many reasons to love and admire the US for what we helped promote around the globe and still continue to do so.  However, we also have many black spots in our history for which people have a right to hate us as well.  Thats just the fact of our foreign policy, like it or not!!!!!

I think most people, conservative or liberal, are knee-jerk, non-intellectual people who probably couldn't coherently defend their beliefs if their lives depended on it.  I do think there are a few people on both sides of the political spectrum who are intellectual, and have reasoned arguments for their political beliefs.  They are just few and far between.

On January 17, 1893 a group of sugar planters & missionary descendants w/the aid of US marines overthrow Queen Liliuokalani thus ending the Hawaiian monarchy...A new republic was established, controlled by Sanford Dole....Dole & his planters led a powerful cartel which controlled banking, shipping, hardware, & practically every other facet of economic life on the islands.......So basically, they kicked out the queen & controlled a land that wasn't theirs to begin with......

In 1993, President Clinton signed a law that apologized for that Jan 1893 overthrow of Hawaii......

What the 9/11 commission said was that there was no link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.  There was, is, and remains undisputed evidence of links between al Quaeda and Iraq.

And Rush Limbaugh makes the indisputable point that you far Lefties apparently believe that the only place where al Qaeda was NOT connected to was Iraq, a rather nonsensical proposition, since it was in Florida!

1.  British Petroleum?  lol

2.  Out with the Marxist, in with free enterprise.  No American soldiers were sent to Guatemala, the CIA was as active as the KGB and where is the American presence in Guatemala now?

3.  Out with the Marxist, in with free enterprise again.  Pinochet called for free elections, lost and turned the government over without further bloodshed.  His tenure as president left Chile with a thriving economy (South America's Leading Economy), highest literacy rate in S.A., lowest infant mortality rate in S.A., etc, etc!  And no US military  presence in Chile.

If your point is that America has paid attention to their own interests, fine, guilty, but hardly imperialism.  Although this kind of horseshit is taught in most of our universities, it is just another Marxist lie.

If America had a imperialist inclination, people in Japan would be speaking English, as would the Germans, Italians and french, etc. etc.

Now for you and your Marxist buds, here is a lesson as to what Imperialism is:

Imperialism   (Funk & Wagnalls)

1.  A policy that aims at creating, maintaining, or extending an empire or superstate, comprising many nations and areas, all controlled by a central government.

2.  A governmental policy of developing foreign trade and exploiting the raw materials of backward countries through the use of political and military pressures, without necessarily assuming direct political control of the nations affected.

Sounds a hell of allot more like the failed Soviet system!

2.  A governmental policy of developing foreign trade and exploiting the raw materials of backward countries through the use of political and military pressures, without necessarily assuming direct political control of the nations affected.

Having proven his point- can your post display any more lack of knowledge about both history AND Political Science?  You are always about topping yourself aren't you?

And did you happen to notice that the Cold War ended?  And that the Soviet Empire was not very Marxist, but Marxist-LENINIST?  The  Leninist-STALINIST  part was huge- authoritarianism DRESSED UP IN SOCIALIST VERBIAGE but not real Marxism.  We still have yet to see real Marxism in action.  

Lots of US "Advisors" in Guatemala.  Lots of Israeli "Advisors".  Even members of the regiment!  US presence is strong still, but on the DL.

Pinochet killed over 3,000 of his own people.  The close friend of a room-mate of mine was beaten and then had gasoline poured on him and was SET ON FIRE! in Chile.  An american resident home for a school break!  And the Letelier Bombing in DC?  You thought that guy was a commie and he deserved to be killed on US soil?

Now your posts are fully established as a Fascist apologist, are you going to deny the holocaust?

Your posts are the living embodiment of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and your anti-intelectual rants are impressive too.  Hard to imagine being against thought, but I guess you figure that what works for you should be the rule all over.  

Sorry- but I prefer to think and to learn.

Sorry to get po'd but any american who cheers for Pinochet deserves to spend a year in one of his jails!  He was no Hitler, but a close copy of Franco!

-- Modified on 9/1/2004 9:20:31 PM

The article 2 of your own definition, read it outloud 2000 times.

Who made you the defender of free enterprise?  I think wherever you got your brainwashing, did a poor job,

I want you to repeat after me:  

I am an American, and I understand the best interest of an individual corporation, is not necessarily in the best interest of the American people.

Now, repeat this 2000 times too.

You see when a government wants to take your shit and give it to somebody else, that is Marxism!  Which of course, as a democrat, you subscribe to, so maybe you just call it "democracy".  But you can call your anus a Hot Pink Porshe 930, but it will still be your anus, and allot of democrats are baby marxists.

Once again, you make trite comments without backing them up with facts.  Since your understanding of the definition of Imperialism fits the United State, maybe you would care to give some facts to back that wack attitude up!

You have way too much class envy.  Repeat after me, If I put this much energy into getting ahead, I would.  And then maybe I wouldn't have to post under aliases anymore.

this is why you guys are about to get your asses kicked...

Oh wait, can't do that! It conflicts with the Democratic montra if amoralism!!

Pinochet = killed over 3,000 of his people (undocumented) - left the country after a free election leading in every economic indicator used by modern man.  Pinochet lost the election with 46% of the vote, more than Clinton ever received.

Pol Pot  =  killed over 3,000,000 of his people (documented) and his country is still a shit hole!

Ho Chi Minh = Killed over 2,000,000 (documented) of his people after the fall of Saigon, and surprise, his country is still a fucking shit hole!

"We still have yet to see real Marxism in action."  and since Hanoi John won't be elected, we won't see it here for at least 4 years!  Progressive, I think not, what you want is a return to old fashion socialism, which has failed or is failing everywhere it has been tried including your precious Europe.  Hardly progressive.  On this planet, Free Enterprise is progressive.

Sorry about the close friend of a roommates being beaten and set on fire.  But I don't really believe it.  Document it!  Pinochet ruled with an iron fist, I don't deny that, but you forget that Allende was no fucking angel either.

I've been to Chile, it is an outstanding country!  I was there while Pinochet ruled and I didn't see anybody cowering in fear.  I read newspapers that were critical of Pinochet and neither the publishers or the newsboys seem to afraid of repercussions.  What I witnessed was a thriving people, a well nourished people, a happy people!

Pinochet = over 3,000 (undocumented) in contrast Hitler over 8,000,000 (documented), I can see how you would find those number close, with your superior intellect and all, and how you "prefer to think and learn", or claim you do.

Ultimately, what you hate is that Pinochet kicked a fucking Marxist ass out of Chile.  The radical left loves guys like Allende, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro.  Did you even notice how forcefully the people of Nicaragua voted Ortega's ass out?  Or how that country is blossoming economically and socially?  Oh, but they are probably stupid idiots too, wanting freedom and all!

Snowman,
   The point wasn't one of any nation being perfect.  The point was that we haven't always practised what we preach!!!!!  Its a very very simple point!! We have removed tyrants in the cause of freedom and democracty, and we have also supported tyrants in the name of foreign policy!!!!!
   Don't be so defensive, you had nothing to do with it!!!!!As a citizen you should atleast be able to recognize the evils of your govt along with all the good.  

But then again your only a Republican cheerleader.  You must have some guns on you from wailing those pom poms (do they match your Lexus).

  Such a moronic statement is equivalent to intellectual pedophilia.  The premise of your statement is so perverse, elementary, and idiotic that its frankly scary you have the right to vote!!!!!
  To equate dissent and disagreement with hatred of this nation is revealing of caliber of thinking that is even unworthy of being compared to that of the Taliban.  It proves that one doesn't need to live in a cave, or wear a turban, or have the name Atta to be an ignorat fool.  
  Think about this one for a while, "It is better to stay silent and only be thought of as a fool rather than open your mouth and actually prove you are a real fool."  
  Oh great leader of thy village, return to your throne for they miss you dearly.  And make sure its a one way ticket!!!!!

with a personal attack.

Gee, and I thought you Lefties didn't like "the politics of personal destruction."

Of course, the scumbag who coined the phrase was it's most proficient practitioner.

Pathetic hypocrites.

You are on a escort seeking website.  You probally routinely cheat on your wife or girlfriend (or both) and lie to cover your activities.  And you lecture on morality?  You never have appeared to be a genius to me or anything close, but you become curiouser and curiouser.

Allende ran a Socialist country but did not have a secret police.  He was not a Stalinist or an authoritarian.  If he was, the coup might have been discovered, so blatant was its american direction.  I can olny assume that you were there invilved with the government forces.  Of course you would be shown a thriving American loving locale.

I think you are totally addled, but even you should be able to see that it is authoritarianism that kills people.  The rest is just labels that they use to rule. Sure, I agree that Hitler and Stalin were the nadir of humanity, but that does not get Chile or Argentina off the hook.  From either side, political gangsterism is bad.

The fact that you choose to gloss over the outrages of all but the most outlandish right wing leaders speaks volumes about the type of you personal beliefs.  Is, perhaps 7 Days in May  your personal bible?  Or might it be Mein Kampf?

Hey-  i recall that alot of Americans used to say of Mussolini, "well at least he made the trains run on time".  You make choose to ignore the suffering of all but our toadies, I do not.

OTOH- I do like your taste in wenching, especially massage, so perhaps you are my evil twin.  I shall merely have to dedicate my votes to cancelling out yours in the hopes that we can avert the kind of Armaggedon

-- Modified on 9/2/2004 5:28:10 PM

You constantly show a distinct lack of knowledge about the Middle East.  Iraq Baathists were quite Secular-occassionally invoked religion for political purposes, but were largley at war with their religious extremists (the one thing I applaud them on- the ONE THING).  Thus they might have been on speaking terms with Al Q representatives in order to keep up with events, but hardly likely to support activities.  You will find that the terrosist activities they tended to support were secular (PLO, Black September, Al Fatah, PLA, etc) or groups they could rest assured were going to be aimed exclusively at their enemies (usually israel), so they might have been in communication with Hamas and cooperated occasionally.  But then Hamas is relatively closely tied to both Iran and Syria, two of their sworn enemies.

It is like saying that the GOP was supporting fascist anti-communists. Oooops. Back that up - the GOP has often been on record supporting Fascist anti communists.

It's more like saying the Israelis were supporting the IRA.  A bit of a non-sequitor.

As for Rush. Best leave him be.  He IS a brilliant radio personality.  A great raconteur, a funny chatterbox.  But there is no factual basis for just about anything he says, and his sum total of learning seems to be about the 9th grade.  He chooses what he does read very carefully for its dogmatic value, so the actual historical record is completley alien to him.

I recall when I worked for an educated ditto head(they DO exist!), we used to chuckle at his schtick and then guffaw at his historical/geopolitical/political science gaffes.  The record was, I recall hazily, 22 mistakes/misstatements/innaccuracies in an hour!  Funny stuff, but hardly a person to be quoted!  you might want to toss O'Reilly in that group as well as O'Hannity or whatever his name is.  They are funny guys and good arguers, but totally out of touch with the accepted flow of history.  Like Reagan, they tend to think the films of the Era or about an era reflect realities- and tend to mix up fact and fiction freely.

Once again you betray your misconception of the true nature of the full political spectrum.  Some elements on the left and right of various countries' spectra can wish us ill for completely different reasons.  And they do not have to be in cahoots.  Perhaps you will recall a WWII we fought WITH a communist state AGAINST a group of Fascist/Nationalist states, only to find we had to fight a cold war against that very same Communist state.  All along the way, we ran into groups of every other stripe fighting on one side or another with divergent capability  and effort.

The right wing Yugoslavians often fought FOR the Germans against us and the commie partisans cuz they thought communim was worse than fascism.  The Koumintang often refused to fight the Japanese for the same reason- they wanted to keep all their cool yank gear for fighting Mao.  

Sorry for going off topic for bit, but you seem so far behind in this world history thing, that the occasional cram session is really called for.

I have not seen material on Limbaugh in the news and am not watching a lot of cable news of late.  I know that he was in trouble for alleged Oxycontin(sp?) doping a few months back.  How did it turn out, if there has been some type of conclusion?
    But on your point, a moderate would be a liberal by your measuring stick.  Everything is relative.

if his stance would be the same if it were him that was pregnant (you didn't say it but I'm sure it's NOT).  Of course, this was under an alias (lest you soil your honorable rep).

I agree that there are many hypocrites on both sides.  YOU being one of the biggest.


Typical Republican hypocrite.

He consistently shows a lack of knowledge about most anything.

have no principles, and can't make a decision.

In fact, most people who claim to be "moderate" are Liberals who want to get elected from the ignorant American populace cited by emeraldvodka, above.

Yes, so much so, that I bet 1$ James86 =  Snowman39.




If not, same difference.

Certainly not here.  When I qualify as one of the most lucid, there is a real communication problem.

You and Bribri seem to get your historical knowledge off the back of a cereal box in the fifties.

Still- it's so easy right now to see the divide- the polarization is intense.

I am beginning to think that California ought to secede.

OK- RLTW can occasionally put an argument together that holds little water.  Usually based on some interpretations that I find lacking, but an argument nonetheless.

The other dudes are largely non-factors when it comes to factual basis or lucidity. Like you, they tend to rant about their "points" with little or no regard to the historical record, factual analysis, or often common decency.

Please do not confuse an occasional turn of phrase with real debating technique.  But i know you will anyway.

somewhat at least.

Our foreign policy over the years has been pretty stupid. I especially can not believe how we reacted to the terrorists seizing the school in Russia. Too many times we have a double standard about what we should do and what other countries should do.