Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now PSFF17_gno

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 3, 2005, 11:00:11 AM PST
Definitely a must read in this day and age

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2007, 12:22:29 PM PST
jkl song says:
I don't think the "Patriot" Act goes *as* far as Ingsoc, but if Bush and the neocons had their way, this book might reflect reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 14, 2007, 8:03:53 AM PDT
B. Howell says:
The novel is more akin to the Clintons,Kennedys,The Left,Code Pink,Move On,etc.Some critics say Teddy Kennedy got away with murder.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2007, 10:50:45 AM PDT
What? Exactly how is Code Pink taking over the government and controlling the citizens? How exactly was Ted Kennedy creating a culture of everlasting warfare for poverty by getting in an auto accident?

You've obviously missed on of the big points of this book. The ideology that totalitarianism claims to have is window dressing. The real ideology of ANY form of totalitarianism, whether the right wing of the Nazis or the left wing of Stalinism, is that of raw power - "a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2007, 11:31:00 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
Why is this book "Bushian"? Do you know the differences between socialism and capitalism, or between Bush and Stalin, or that today's so-called "Democrats" are essentially Stalinistic? Or do you just hate Bush because he's not a socialist, and because he won the electoral college but not the popular vote in 2000?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2007, 12:24:46 PM PDT
*rolls eyes*. Oh great, another person doing the whole "Bush-is-evil-and-trying-to-take-over-the-world" scenario. Bush is not a bad man, I do believe he thinks he has the country's interests at heart. I'm not going to wildly sing his praises, nor do I harbor an intense hatred of him. Bush has disappointed me his second term, but I wouldn't go to the extreme and say that what happens in 1984 is occuring under our watch here in the U.S. under Bush and his administration.

Though I do see some instances of disturbing trends that we should all watch for. The whole idea of political correctness speech, I think, is a way to control or censor what we say and what words we use. The Fairness Doctrine that some in the Democratic party want to put in place regarding conservative am talk radio. Yes it failed, but the fact it even came up worries me. So much for the 1st amendment and the freedom of the press.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2007, 10:43:52 PM PDT
T. J. Gates says:
I think you're right, L. "Political correctness speech," as you put it, can be used to censor what we say. That's a fair point. Another fair point would be the myriad of right wing pundits who flat out said that anyone who disagree with the president in a time of war are essentially defeatists, sympathizers or terrorists themselves. Free speech isn't always pretty. If we don't get our act together as a nation, then whomever we elect, Democrat or Republican, will lead us even further down the road to an Orwellian future. Bush can be interpreted as a Big Brother type, with the domestic spying program and suspension of civil liberties and basic human rights. Conversely, Democrats can be just as wrong, with the aforementioned fairness doctrine. Politics are scary, and neither party is squeaky clean. Whatever your personal idealogy, surely you can concede that point.
I won't go so far as to be pretentious and say that Orwell was a prophet, but the man definitely had his finger on the pulse of the dangers of an overzealous government and a sheep-like populace.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 6, 2007, 4:38:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 6, 2007, 4:39:32 PM PDT
I'm so very tired of the political bull that has been polluting the atmosphere as of late. To have it leaking onto 1984 really irks me. But most distressing of all, no one respects the presidential office anymore. Bush may be a mediocre president, but do we really need to hear "bush-bashing" everywhere we go?! I agree with L completely, and to think that it's all the Republicans fault is simply naive. What the heck have democrats done to help the situation?! Seizing the house! Big whoop!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2008, 5:23:28 AM PST
Stacy says:
Yes, we do need to hear Bush bashing. Although it is relevant to ask what democrats have done to help, that is totally missing the point that the relatively nice adjective "mediocore" to describe Bush's presidency does not do justice to the chaotic world of pain and terror he has created. Obviously we found ourselves in a war waged under false pretenses that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans (all human beings who did not ask for this war) because people, media, politicians, etc were too weak to face the truth and argue against Bush and his henchmen when they told us that "civilization" was at risk if we didn't take out Saddam. Well, more of civilization is certainly at risk now. I hear ridiculous arguments like "the Iraqis can vote now" and "saddam hated us"...whoopdidoo!! Ask an Iraqi whether or not the "freedom" to literally risk his life to stand in line and cast a vote for a politician he knows nothing about, go without water, electricity, safe schools for his children, fear to leave the house, etc is worth the theoretical "freedom" he has obtained by being "liberated". Whether pretty much every Iraqi who has lost one or more loved ones cherishes his or her new found "freedom". Oh yeah, I forgot "freedom isn't free". But shouldn't you ask the people you are trying to "free" how much they want to pay?

What about the soldier who has lost his limbs, eyesight, hearing, and mental well-being? Does he find consolation in the often-stated-fact by the president's people that there have only been a "few thousand" Amercian deaths in this war with no end in site and only contrived concepts of "victory"? The last republican ( I'm not saying it's all about the republicans, but this was Bush's war - he pushed the agenda from day one) I heard talk about the numbers stated that there have been "close to 4 thousand" deaths and "a few thousand injured" Amercians....try over 30,000 injured Americans, over 15,000 with loss of life, limb, eyesite or hearing. over 5,000 with traumatic brain injury.

So, yes bashing is needed. Ridiculous comments like, "I think Bush believes in what he's doing" and "bush is not evil" do not help anybody. If politicians did not speak up already, we would be on our way to making the same mistake in Iran. And don't tell me "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here". So, God and moral law, is so pro-American that we can just blow a country to smithereens and it's perfectly fine because then all the terrorists will congregate there rather than here??? If you believe in this concept, I hope karma and judging gods do not exist for your sake.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2008, 3:23:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 7, 2008, 7:40:44 PM PST
I agree with Stacy in the sense that American interference in the Middle East is merely an attempt at the manifest destiny of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The war in Iraq was not necessarily founded upon "weapons of mass destruction" as we were led to believe. Rather, the war was a political maneuvre intended to free the Iraqi people from the totalitarian regime of Hussein with the pretense that we would be preventing and abolishing the organized establishment of terrorism in that country. Although not the reasons Bush stated to the country when war was declared upon Iraq, these are very just causes. I do not wish to discuss whether they authorize the current war, but they are unavoidable facts that must be acknowledged.

Whether or not Bush has established freedom in Iraq I will leave to be decided by the reader. The continued terrorism in the country shows that Bush has been ultimately unsuccessful to date; however, he has set a precedent for freedom in the country that will hopefully have a beneficial effect. He used the war as a retaliation against the Middle East for September 11. This was in response to the general will of the American people. We desired retribution for our losses and President Bush appeased us. I do not believe that his reelection has benefited this country, but I do believe that he has stood firm when many other politicians have wavered.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2008, 5:09:39 PM PST
Stacy says:
I do not personally believe that we went to Iraq to "free" the Iraqis. What does freeedom mean to them? Our concept is totally different than theirs. If you had grown up in Iraq would you have wanted American forces to blow up your country and kill loved ones in an effort to bring you "liberty"? The Iraqis that are now "free" are afraid to leave their homes. They don't go to the doctor b/c doctors are being killed there. They wake to the sound of IED's and gunfire. Would you feel "free" right now if every day you walked outside and there were tanks and soldiers in your front yard? This is what a "free" Iraq looks like. We will have to stay there indefinitely and when we leave what do you honestly think will happen? There have already been reports of ethnic cleansing. Who is pursuing "happiness" there. Is it within the "rights" of an Iraqi to have an American decide what happiness and liberty means for him or her? These are questions that were never asked b/c the admin scared our people into supporting their grandiose plans for re-election, wealth, and the establishment of a permanent base in the middle east. Remember..."mushroom cloud"...Dick Cheney's assertion that "there is a 100% chance that we will be hit by a terrorist attack" that would cause more deaths than occured on 9/11 "within one year". And that Saddam would be responsible. Come on...he was not even in a position to harm his own closest neighbors.

I do agree that our entering the war was for political and economic reasons to benefit a few. I disagree that it was for a "just" cause. Lies and the mass marketing of fear by the administration created the support to go to war. Remember at one time 70% of Americans believed Saddam was resposible for 9/11. Where did this come from?...we all know. We are severly weakened in our current state. We decided that Iraq was 10X more important than Afganistan and now the Taliban and al Qaeda are regaining a foothold there where we actually had a create some lasting good.

So yes, Bush has stood firm. I don't know what that really means or that it matters unless you are correct in what you are doing. He stood firm that we would not need more than 100,000 troops to win the war. He stood firm that Saddam had WMD. Stood firm that the inspectors in Iraq were not doing any good. dropped the first bombs within days of the top inspector being unlimited access and finding nothing. Sure I know that we didn't go to rid them of WMD. Doesn't it irk you at all that they were so deceitful. Why is steadfastness considered a positive attribute in this case when the ideology and propaganda so highlighted by his unwavering approach is based on lies and has weakened us.

Think how much stronger we would be now if we put all of our effort into Afganistan and hunting down terror networks. Instead we attracted terrorists into a country where there were none or few. The American people wanted retribution and a sense that it would make us safer. The opposite has happened. We handed Bin Laden a gift when we decided that al qaeda, the taliban, and afganistan were not our priority in the military offensive. We realistically could have freed a whole country in Afganistan.

Let's make sure that this time we don't let them create another mess in Iran.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2008, 9:49:41 AM PDT
R. Smith says:
Correct. Orwell expresses in his very long chapter in which Winston reads the book, about the state keeping control of the poor masses by giving them just enough sustenance to keep them alive but never enough to allow them any advancement. This is a Democrat party philosophy. It is how the Democrat party attempts to maintain its popularity amongst the poor. If the poor would wake up to this fact, they could then proceed to improve their lot in life.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2008, 9:57:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2008, 9:59:40 AM PDT
R. Smith says:
"The war in Iraq was not necessarily founded upon "weapons of mass destruction" as we were led to believe. Rather, the war was a political maneuvre intended to free the Iraqi people from the totalitarian regime of Hussein with the pretense that we would be preventing and abolishing the organized establishment of terrorism in that country."


All of this is irrelevant. The "second" Gulf war is really nothing more than a continuation of the first one. Hussein refused to abide by the cease-fire agreements, that he had accepted, which ended the original outbreak of war. War is a useless endevour if the winner refuses to enforce the concessions of the loser. After 17 UN resolution had been ignored, there was no other choice than to enforce them.

By the way, the "first" war was fully justified as it was an effort to expel Hussein from a country that he invaded.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2008, 5:48:36 AM PDT
Stacy says:
"The second gulf war is nothing more than"...Nothing more?? Would you be talking so non-chalantly about this if your children lived in Iraq? It's much more than what you say, friend. Based on your matter of fact, far-removed, empty and simplistic assessment, I highly doubt you have served a day in the military. It's people like you the adminstration love. It's so clear to you that the only option was war, but you have no idea what war entails. And you imply that going to war was our only option. Your cold, calculated, chest-thumping rhetoric is typical of one who has never faced true risk or looked in the eyes of one who has lost everything. And if you have, then you have lost your humanity and common sense. Please tell me who is being helped by this war. Are we? And don't give me some ridiculous, convoluted explanation about how we will transform the middle east, etc. Or that we have removed a dictator...whoopdeedoo. I don't think you see the suffering Iraqi or American soldier as quite as human as yourself. Why don't you join the military and then we'll see if you refer to war as "really nothing more than"...But, we both know this will not happen, don't we comrade?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2008, 3:31:32 PM PDT
Gary Bisaga says:
None of this Bush-bashing, however much fun it apparently is, has anything to do with what the book's about, or even this comment thread. Actually, I find your attitude that apparently follows the "there never was a bad peace or a good war" idea very 1984-like in itself. Better to live in some comfort under a murderous dictator than to do without in freedom. I don't think Winston would agree - at least, before his re-education.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2008, 3:32:40 PM PDT
Gary Bisaga says:
No question. As I read the book, I kept thinking of the political correctness crowd and the controls they'd put into place if they were ever able to assume power. They've already come pretty close in many universities.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2008, 3:40:18 PM PDT
Gary Bisaga says:
Give me a break. You may not like Bush, but what kind of thinking person could jump to such a conclusion? Use your own brain instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2008, 3:43:11 PM PDT
Gary Bisaga says:
You missed B. Howell's point. His point was obviously that if Code Pink and friends were ever to be able to gain control, they would be far more likely to take on the tactics used in 1984 than the "neocons." I agree with your comment about the "big points" of this book - and I suspect he would as well - he was simply responding to the unthinking knee-jerk comment about Bush and the nasty "neo-cons" above.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2008, 6:24:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2008, 6:25:18 PM PDT
You, Gus the Goldfish, are a prime example of the brainwashed from 1984.
You are victim of the modern Democratic movement, that incorporates "doublethink" and "doublespeak" into their philosophy.
2+2 does not equal 5. It equals 4. A is A.
The opposite of good is bad, not "ungood".
Is means is, Mr. President Clinton.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2008, 6:13:48 AM PDT
Stacy says:
Bill Clinton's fancy semantics used to avoid the embarrassment of a bj by his intern are merely comedic when compared to the consequences of the pathetic marketing of fear and perpetuation of lies by the republicans over the last 8 years. Talk about brainwashing...."WMD", "mobile weapons labs", "enemy combatants", "mushroom clouds", "war to save civilization", "operation enduring freedom", "operation free iraq", "swift boat veteran for truth" "it is not torture unless it involves death or irreversible organ damage"..etc, etc. All a farce or lies. I am not impressed with the democrat controlled congress as a whole at this point, but this painful situation was created by Bush and his people. We would not be talking about a never-ending war in Iraq if a democrat was president. The republicans have mastered many of the successful propaganda and control techniques used by big brother. Thought police were running wild after 9/11 searching for those unpatriotic anti-American Americans who did not believe war with Iraq was justified. Now our chief justice and fellow republicans want congress to broaden those who can be detained indefinitely to include those " enemy combatants" OR "those with hostile intent". Should the Dixie chicks be sent to guantanamo for their "hostile" intent to undecut pres bush? Whatever the "modern democratic movement" is guilty of, it certainly is not directly responsible for the deaths of 100,000 plus iraqis and hundreds of thousands of injured and millions now living in misery. Republicans still talk of "thousands" of injured Americans when the true number is >30,000. They talk about morals often in the same breath as they speak of guns, war, gay marriage, and god. It seems every time they want to wage a war on false pretenses or pass gun rights legislation, they invoke god as if he has a fondness for these things. As if they know him best. Such a morally superior group who can judge gays or women who have an abortion while their policies directly kill or ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands. Don't get me wrong, I know democrats are capable of the same, but right now we and the rest of the world are not hurting b/c of the policies of the left over the last 7 yrs.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2008, 11:32:37 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 12, 2008, 11:33:17 AM PDT
Republicans are evil, Democrats are evil, blah, blah, blah... You'd think we had our own Big Brother/Emmanuel Goldstein right here in the U.S. Don't you guys see the major conflicts in the book being played out in 'miniature' in our own politics? Dems and Repubs pick a few issues they use to polarize the country, issues they know get close to 50/50 support in the public. They use these to maintain their bipolar control of government.
We hear the same things every four years. The republican candidate is old/losing his marbles/an idiot/a schemer. The Democrat is too young/inexperienced/liberal/blue-blood/stiff. Yawn.

Bush is an idiot. Bush is a schemer. Bush is clueless. Bush is Satan. Make up your mind, people. Then think about setting aside all this angst and harping (Ten Minutes Hate) about things you can't control.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2008, 3:42:50 AM PST
k1728 says:
This post makes me wonder if you have any idea what happened in Iraq before we came in. Iraq was ruled by a ruthless and murderous dictator who senslessly murdered tens of thousands and would never have changed. I'm sure there has been more violence lately, which is horrible, but now there is hope for change. In the long run there will be less of what you are saying- less loved ones lost and less marred lives. That is assuming we stay in Iraq and fulfill our responsibilty to mankind in giving to others the freedom that we so obviously don't appreciate. President Bush is a great man and is one of the best presidents we have ever had. I am not dissapointed with his second term at all, and I don't see why we should be. Ignorant people see pain and suffering in the world and immediatley blame him. He has done all that a man can be expected to do to serve us and the world at large. He had bad intelligence and couldn't see the future with the hindsight that we seem to find so convenient, but he did all he could for this country and his reward for eight years of selfless service is to be demonized by a public that knows nothing about him. That really disgusts me. We do not need any Bush-bashing. We need to appreciate all that he has done for us and carry on the hope for a better life he has helped to establish for so many Iraquis. It is horrible what the country has had to go through, but it is the only way to break out of the rut of misery they were in before we got there. Lets not forget how evil their dictator was- something like what some would have us perceive president Bush to be, completely without grounds. They were never not in the state of misery you have described, and now they have a chance out. It is better to get worse for a few years than to stay how it was forever, and if we need to be in Iraq for five generations to establish a stable government, then so be it. It will not be a war the whole time. We are still in South Korea maintaining what we established there. The difference between Iraq in 2000 and Iraq in 2050 could be like the difference between North and South Korea today, which are polar opposites. I hate to even think of what is going on right now in North Korea, things as atrocious as the holocaust (in fewer numbers, but no less evil and disgusting). That is what dictatorships can become, and we have broken the hold of dictatorship in Iraq. If they don't appreciate what we have done for them they don't understand it, and that is fine. They will understand in the future if we don't abandon them now. It really makes me sad to see some of the very few people in history who were born into prosperity and freedom (and anyone in the U.S. is, by historical standards), to see such people bemoan our fate as victims of a 1984 society. What gratitude for those who have died to give us our freedom! How can one be so ingrateful as to behold such a magnificent society and only see the inevitable flaws which are so small in comparison to the good. Sure, we should work to fix them, but I cannot stand to hear people with such opportunity preach about how we have taken some immaginary state of stability or happiness from the Iraqui people. We should be willing to sacrifice to share what we have, and they will make sacrifices to. It is impossible for each individual to agree on this, but it will be obvious in the long run that our actions are appreciated. Don't ask those who are sacrificing for a freedom yet to be fully realized if it is worth it. Go to South Korea and ask them if the war we waged on their land was murderous and unjust. They will tell you that we have made an invaluable and selfless sacrifice on their behalf and they will thank our nation for it. Please support the freedom and happiness of the Iraqui people, and don't jepordize that by getting carried off by whims of conspiracy theories and the rediculus notion that all was fine in Iraq before we got there. And please show a little appreciation for the freedom you have and the lives sacrificed to make it so.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2009, 11:10:25 AM PST
A customer says:
Oh my god. Who are you, Kyle? Is this really George Bush, but you haven't got the guts to use your real name?


Posted on Feb 19, 2009, 8:01:54 PM PST
hmm, over 50% of Americana are now dependent on government, people believe whatever the socialist media tells them to believe, many in government are trying to re-instate the fairness doctrine to silence critics...

looks like we are on our way...

Posted on Jul 18, 2009, 7:06:45 AM PDT
K. O'Brien says:
Obama, Obama, Obama.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  24
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Nov 3, 2005
Latest post:  Oct 30, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

This discussion is about