The Gloating Thread
POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Sunday, March 5, 2023 18:16
VIEWED: 16213
PAGE 2 of 2
"One of the most terrible things I saw when Obama was elected President was this: Most of the anti-war protesters vaporized."
I personally thought the fight to end the wars was over (and he did give us a date certain to getting out of Iraq, which he kept, and has given us a date certain to get out of Afghanistan), along with those other things that were wrong - we'd get better environmental protection, justice for the people over the financial misdeeds that broke the economy, closing of Gitmo and civilian trials of its inmates, a reversal of domestic spying and the threat of citizen indefinite detention etc. I kept thinking, well, OK, he's dealing with this and this and ... It took me two years to figure out that, indeed, Obama was a problem on a lot of things. For me perhaps being tired from the dubya years also figured in. So for me personally, the first couple of years were a test drive before I realized what the problems were.
I can't speak about other people.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I may be mistaken, but I think the current President adhered to the withdrawal timetable set by the former President.
If withdrawal is the right word for what we've done.
On other fronts, I wonder if constant bombing and border invasions by drone devices seems less like war to us.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... I think the current President adhered to the withdrawal timetable set by the former President."
Just a historical note - there was some idea that the US would keep combat troops in Iraq if it (the US) could negotiate an agreement with the Iraq government to do so. The US failed to secure an agreement and a lot of the old chicken-hawks from the dubya years and a lot of people on the right (including our own rapster) said the US should extend its time in Iraq until such an agreement was reached. Kind of like taking Iraq hostage until you get what you want. So the president actually took flak for taking all combat troops out of Iraq, and on schedule.
"On other fronts, I wonder if constant bombing and border invasions by drone devices seems less like war to us."
It does to me. It is a lesser war than wholesale bombing with troops and tanks shooting DU at people, so it seems less like war.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But somehow we can't learn from the horrific acts that occurred when the Soviet Union was allowed to extend their philosophy of government control of every aspect of life over half of Europe? The acts of the Secret Police can teach us nothing? The lessons of the gulags have no relevence? We take nothing away from artists who weren't allowed to buy paint because their work was abstract, not 'Socialist Realism'? The hundreds of pictures on the walls of the former Secret Police headquarters in Budapest - pictures of people who were brought to the building and never left - have nothing to say? I'm beginning to wonder if you don't criticize the Soviet Union because you see nothing done wrong that deserves criticism.
Of course we can, but what can we learn that's relevant to us???
I learned that putting a single person in charge of everything is dangerous. I learned that people can be misled by patriotism or manipulated by fear into heinous acts of betrayal. I learned that people can be blinded by ideology. I learned that taking land away from peasants is never a good thing.
And one of the things I learned, both from our acts and from the acts and policies of other nations is that it is important that people not blind themselves into violence and killing to support an idea. I learned that if you have to kill to impose your beliefs on others, then you have truly lost in the marketplace of ideas. I find that moral code works, whether I apply it to us, to jihadists, or to Stalin or Mao. So you can wonder all you like and insert whatever innuendo into your posts that you choose, but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"On other fronts, I wonder if constant bombing and border invasions by drone devices seems less like war to us."
It does to me. It is a lesser war than wholesale bombing with troops and tank shooting DU at people, so it seems less like war.
Hello,
Then I wager that war has been successfully sanitized. He who can afford the robots can wage war in perpetuity and without horrifying his population.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
But somehow we can't learn from the horrific acts that occurred when the Soviet Union was allowed to extend their philosophy of government control of every aspect of life over half of Europe? The acts of the Secret Police can teach us nothing? The lessons of the gulags have no relevence? We take nothing away from artists who weren't allowed to buy paint because their work was abstract, not 'Socialist Realism'? The hundreds of pictures on the walls of the former Secret Police headquarters in Budapest - pictures of people who were brought to the building and never left - have nothing to say? I'm beginning to wonder if you don't criticize the Soviet Union because you see nothing done wrong that deserves criticism.
Of course we can, but what can we learn that's relevant to us???
I learned that putting a single person in charge of everything is dangerous. I learned that people can be misled by patriotism or manipulated by fear into heinous acts of betrayal. I learned that people can be blinded by ideology. I learned that taking land away from peasants is never a good thing.
And one of the things I learned, both from our acts and from the acts and policies of other nations is that it is important that people not blind themselves into violence and killing to support an idea. I learned that if you have to kill to impose your beliefs on others, then you have truly lost in the marketplace of ideas. I find that moral code works, whether I apply it to us, to jihadists, or to Stalin or Mao. So you can wonder all you like and insert whatever innuendo into your posts that you choose, but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones.
Hello,
I second these lessons, and laud them.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The domestic civilian control ones are next...
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Then I wager that war has been successfully sanitized. He who can afford the robots can wage war in perpetuity and without horrifying his population.
Disgusting, all of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That he has a difficult job with fierce opposition does not convince me to judge him less harshly. If he did what he could, each time he could, I could judge him less harshly.
I agree with that. From what I have read, Obama didn't make a sincere effort to get to know the opposition and play the other "political games" that MIGHT have helped him overcome some of the opposition. I don't judge him as harshly as you do, because he was up against a concerted and agreed-upon opposition, but I nonetheless recognize his failing.Quote:
I also thought Maggie Thatcher's little war in the Falklands was just about as hypocritical as Reagan's invasion of Grenada, and Tony Blair was Bush's lapdog.
I agree with that as well.
AND Chris' "dialogue"--which pretty much describes my worries about Obama when he was running for Prez. I do, however, disagree with Anthony's condemnation of that dialogue. A savvy politician can find ways to work around the road blocks, and some do. Others get completely stymied. Others succeed at getting some things done despite opposition and "the way the world really is", and get stymied at others, like I believe Obama has been. It's all too easy for us to judge, and judge harshly, without knowing all the facts, all the ins and outs of politics and what a President REALLY has the power to accomplish. I'm less willing to judge.Quote:
Anyone paying close attention could see right through their paper thin rhetoric, all their "numbers" and "facts" could not stand up in the light of day.
But they WEREN'T paying attention, much less CLOSE attention; they were buying into what FauxNews and the other right-wing pundits were telling them. Unfortunately, that is all too often the case, with either side--people have their own lives and pay far more attention to those than to politics, not realizing that the politics will AFFECT their lives.
I also agree with Chris'Quote:
While I might not see it as "fascist", I certainly see what the would do, had they the power, which would be harmful to this country.
Obama (or someone like him) serves to stonewall the progress of a total fascist takeover/makeover of America
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation.
I disagree with your characterizations. It's not about being "liberal enough", and you should know it. The "liberals" here disagree with a lot of things Democrats, Obama, etc., do. Those on the right virtually never disagree--or at least not openly--with the GOP, Republicans, etc., do. They LAUD it to the skies, they claim the bad things "didn't happen" or "weren't done". And you go after the left, but rarely the right, which only naturally makes people recognize which side you are on.
I'd like to know among us "hates" the rich; I don't, I just want them to be on a more level playing field and without the power to keep giving themselves special treatment; I think it's only natural they would want to protect their wealth, but as it is, they use their money to put themselves OVER everyone else, tax-wise and in other ways.
I don't know where you get " everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil". If you were even slightly objective, I think you'd see that MOST of the liberals here think those who have a different view are merely wrong in our estimation; it's those who would IMPOSE their views, some reflective of their religion, some laws which negatively affect the rest of us, some focused so much on FORCING their views of abortion on everyone--those things are evil to me and I want to fight them--that doesn't make the people who are doing it "evil".Quote:
I can hear Niki complaining about all the little contributors
Gosh, it would be nice if you guys (always on the right, by the way) didn't put words in my mouth! I'm not sure why I would be "complaining" about little contributors, but I don't think that's what you meant. The fact is, and I've said it before, I'm well aware there is power and money on both sides--all sides--which manages to get what they want via lobbyists, etc. But given corporations and the wealthy tend to favor the right, I recognize they have more power to get what they want. That's the difference.
I'm well aware that unions, for example, have the money to get those they want elected, and thus get preferential treatment. It may be my own prejudice which sees Citizens United as having given inordinate power to affect things to those who have the money to utilize it, whereas unions are generally lobbying for things which are good for workers, and I'm more in favor of workers getting breaks than the ultra-rich and corporations. That's my bias and my honest evaluation; it would be nice if you didn't paint me with the stripe YOU choose to view.
Kiki made a very valid point I wish people would remember, because I recall it very clearlyQuote:
there was some idea that the US would keep combat troops in Iraq if it (the US) could negotiate an agreement with the Iraq government to do so. The US failed to secure an agreement and a lot of the old chicken-hawks from the dubya years and a lot of people on the right (including our own rapster) said the US should extend its time in Iraq until such an agreement was reached. Kind of like taking Iraq hostage until you get what you want. So the president actually took flak for taking all combat troops out of Iraq, and on schedule.
That IS what happened, word for word, and I'll find cites for it if anyone wants.
Lastly, I also second Sig's latest remarks. To say we've "learned nothing" is pretty ridiculous; I don't think we needed t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"He who can afford the robots can wage war in perpetuity and without horrifying his population."
It's not just whether or not our troops are safer or whether or not it appears more sanitary or whether our hands look cleaner. Numbers of civilians matter too. The Afghanistan/ Iraq wars work out to about 13,000 civilians slaughtered per year while drone strikes work out to about 400 per year. So it is a lesser war.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/afghanistan-iraq-wars-killed-1
32000-civilians-report-says/
"Afghanistan, Iraq Wars Killed 132,000 Civilians, Report Says
At least 132,000 civilians have died from 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new study by Brown university. And that’s a conservative estimate.
No one can say with certainty how many civilians have died in these wars. But researchers at Brown’s Watson Institute for International Studies found that between 12,000 and 14,000 of them perished in Afghanistan — the most recent of which came from Tuesday’s audacious insurgent attack on Kabul’s most famous hotel. Another 120,000 died in Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/ind
ex.html
"Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says
"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It's not just whether or not our troops are safer or whether or not it appears more sanitary or whether our hands look cleaner. Numbers of civilians matter too. The Afghanistan/ Iraq wars work out to about 13,000 per year while drone strikes work out to about 400 per year. So it is a lesser war.
Hello,
But of course, if we can war forever because we've roboticized it, the drones will win the total body count in the end.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It's all too easy for us to judge, and judge harshly, without knowing all the facts, all the ins and outs of politics and what a President REALLY has the power to accomplish. I'm less willing to judge.
Hello,
I think it's our job to judge. Harshly. If we the people don't hold feet to the fire, who will?
We can remember him fondly, if we wish, when he has retired. While he's working, he's working for us, and I feel it's our duty to be a bitch of a boss, if you'll pardon my French. :-)
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Lastly, I also second Sig's latest remarks. To say we've "learned nothing" is pretty ridiculous; I don't think we needed to "learn" how horrible those things were. But aside from fighting to see they don't happen HERE, I'm not sure what's expected of us.
Hello,
Aptly put. Resisting such tyranny and inequity at home is the fuel of much of the criticism levied in these threads.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
But of course, if we can war forever because we've roboticized it, the drones will win the total body count in the end.
--Anthony
Well, I'm not quite sure what this means, but I'll think on it. That is why we discuss things - to reconfigure our thoughts in order to grasp what the other means.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
But somehow we can't learn from the horrific acts that occurred when the Soviet Union was allowed to extend their philosophy of government control of every aspect of life over half of Europe? The acts of the Secret Police can teach us nothing? The lessons of the gulags have no relevence? We take nothing away from artists who weren't allowed to buy paint because their work was abstract, not 'Socialist Realism'? The hundreds of pictures on the walls of the former Secret Police headquarters in Budapest - pictures of people who were brought to the building and never left - have nothing to say? I'm beginning to wonder if you don't criticize the Soviet Union because you see nothing done wrong that deserves criticism.
Of course we can, but what can we learn that's relevant to us???
I learned that putting a single person in charge of everything is dangerous. I learned that people can be misled by patriotism or manipulated by fear into heinous acts of betrayal. I learned that people can be blinded by ideology. I learned that taking land away from peasants is never a good thing.
And one of the things I learned, both from our acts and from the acts and policies of other nations is that it is important that people not blind themselves into violence and killing to support an idea. I learned that if you have to kill to impose your beliefs on others, then you have truly lost in the marketplace of ideas. I find that moral code works, whether I apply it to us, to jihadists, or to Stalin or Mao.
Yet the only such acts you criticise, in minute and excruciating detail, are those you figure were committed by the U.S., even if they occurred in the Hoover presidency, and the people who implemented them are long dead. It never seems to occur to you that the acts of the U.S. in the Cold War were in response to the actions of the Soviet Union, which you might reasonably say had blinded themselves into violence and killing in support of Communism, and had killed to impose their beliefs on others. Aid and Kumbaya wasn't going to help Eastern Europe and the Balkans get the Soviets out. Breaking the Soviet Union, as messily, clumsily, and often violently as it was done, did get them out from under the Soviet's oppressive rule.
Quote:
So you can wonder all you like and insert whatever innuendo into your posts that you choose, but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones.
Stifle dissent? Purge anyone who disagrees with the Party? Reduce individual freedom as much as possible? Eat the insufficently doctrinare? Convince children to inform on their parents? I could go on, but you get the picture.
In Budapest, there are little bronze plugs in the walls of buildings all over town. They are there to mark where the Russian bullets hit as they put down the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. They're there to make sure the people of Hungary don't forget the lessons THEY learned from communism.
That you say you have taken only positive lessons from watching what communism has done in the world in the last hundred years speaks more to your character than any innuendo you believe I'm casting. You apparently think that the communists were right to do what they did, and that Eastern Europe would be better off under a Soviet regime. Not sure much of Eastern Europe would agree with you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You cherry picked that line from the rest of signy's post. That's not fair.
However, from where I stand, people can have whatever views they like on this forum. If you only want to criticise the left, or the right, or you can't say one positive thing about the other side, then fair enough.
I think we've kind done to death the 'you only criticise the other side and see your side as all good' conversation. I think most of us are pretty much guilty of something akin to that, and if not, well so be it. Can we move on.
My views on Mitt - from abroad, or from a broad, whichever you prefer.
He's not evil. I think he is a fairly moderate republican at heart. In another political climate, he probably would have made a decent enough president, even though his ideology differs from mine. He certainly isn't a man of the people.
I don't think you can hold moderate views in the republican party anymore. I believe it has become a vipers nest of extremist ultra conservatives with a take no prisoner approach. I find their views on a whole range of issues reprehensible and their econonic solutions ideological driven and incredibly naive, particularly those identified with the Tea Party.
Interestingly, I find those considered to be on the left of American politics, would most likely be considered centreists anywhere else in the world. They are less ideological driven and more pragmatic. Hence you have a party/president that disappoints those who are truly on the left and wanted to see more change.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He's a cartoon version of a real human being. And no, he's not evil; he's just drawn that way.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
My views on Mitt - from abroad, or from a broad, whichever you prefer.
He's not evil.
Quote:Yes, American politics has co-opted & twisted the labels. 'Conservatives' are anything but, the 'left' are mostly centerists, the 'right' are practically neo-fascist-lite, and the actual 'left' barely exists.
Interestingly, I find those considered to be on the left of American politics, would most likely be considered centreists anywhere else in the world.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You cherry picked that line from the rest of signy's post. That's not fair.
Bullshit.
How unclear do you think "...but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones" can be? If someone here said "...but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching republicans have been positive ones" and folks jumped all over it, would you call that cherrypicking?
Let SignyM answer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What if I said the lessons I've learned from Hitler have been positive ones? How NOT to be? Loosen your focus, Geeze. Jeeze!
Originally posted by Geezer:
How unclear do you think "...but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:What if I said the lessons I've learned from Hitler have been positive ones? How NOT to be? Loosen your focus, Geeze. Jeeze!
Originally posted by Geezer:
How unclear do you think "...but rest assured that the lessons I've learned from watching "communism" have been positive ones"
But SignyM didn't add the "...how NOT to be". I have yet to see her say anything at all bad about the Soviet Union or China. I have yet to see her agree that any of the atrocities committed in the name of Socialism were worthy of condemnation.
I'm just curious to see where she really stands, and await her answer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't see this as co-opting and twisting the labels themselves, except in how they are used these days. It's my belief (and that of many others) that this has been going on for a long time now. "America has moved right" is an oft-discussed topic. "Conservatives" have moved so far right that, as has often been said, Ronald Reagan couldn't get nominated--much less elected--today. Anyone moderate is considered "left" and anyone even slightly actually left is considered communist or something equally pejorative.
'Conservatives' are anything but, the 'left' are mostly centerists, the 'right' are practically neo-fascist-lite, and the actual 'left' barely exists.
The following is an excerpt from the book "Stop Me Before I Vote Again", and more aptly explains what I believe than I ever could. Note that it was written in 2005, and what has happened since. It's long, but an excellent read, I thought when I read it:Quote:
The Ratchet Effect
The ratchet is a simple, ubiquitous, ancient bit of machinery. There's one in your bicycle wheel (it allows you to coast without pedaling), there's one in your watch (if you're the old-fashioned type and have a mechanical watch) and there's one in the jib sheet winches of your boat (if you're a yachtsman; but then in that case you probably aren't reading this book). What the ratchet does is permit rotation in one direction but not in the other. Here's a diagram: 
The American political system, since at least 1968, has been operating like a ratchet, and both parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- play crucial, mutually reinforcing roles in its operation.
The electoral ratchet permits movement only in the rightward direction. The Republican role is fairly clear; the Republicans apply the torque that rotates the thing rightward.
The Democrats' role is a little less obvious. The Democrats are the pawl. They don't resist the rightward movement -- they let it happen -- but whenever the rightward force slackens momentarily, for whatever reason, the Democrats click into place and keep the machine from rotating back to the left.
Here's how it works. In every election year, the Democrats come and tell us that the country has moved to the right, and so the Democratic Party has to move right too in the name of realism and electability. Gotta keep these right-wing madmen out of the White House, no matter what it takes.
(Actually, they don't say they're going to move to the right; they say they're going to move to the center. But of course it amounts to the same thing, if you're supposed to be left of center. It's the same direction of movement.)
So now the Democrats have moved to the "center." But of course this has the effect of shifting the "center" farther to the right.
Now, as a consequence, the Republicans suddenly don't seem so crazy anymore -- they're closer to the center, through no effort of their own, because the center has shifted closer to them. So they can move even further right, and still end up no farther from the "center" than they were four years ago.
In fact, the Democrats' rightward shift not only enables the Republicans to move farther right themselves; it actually compels them to do so, if they want to maintain their identity as the angry-white-guy party par excellence. (A great part of the Republicans' hysterical hatred of Bill Clinton arose from this cause: with Democrats like Clinton, who needs Republicans?)
The ratchet clicks: Nixon. The pawl holds: Carter. Click again: Reagan. And again: Bush Senior (and Iraq War I). The pawl holds: Clinton. Click: Bush Junior and Iraq War II; then another click, and it's Bush Junior triumphant, and God knows what to come.
Has the phrase "conspiracy theory&q
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay Geezer- Rest assured, the lessons I've learned from watching Republicans have been positive ones. In fact, I've tried to learn lessons from history- hopefully, universal lessons that can endure regardless of society or vantage point, my essential definitions of right and wrong, honed by the horrors of history.
There, how's that?
I'll explain the main lesson I learned from history again, and see if it makes more sense the second time around.
Every leader .... every single one... who has visited great horror on his population (or others) has done so with good intentions, or at least good excuses. There is no leader who has ever said I'm going to kill 30% of the population and terrorize the rest just because I can. And those who willingly participate in brutality, from the workers and peasants in early Russia to the cadres of young revolutionaries in the Great Leap forward, did so for good and noble reasons. It happens in every society... why we genocided native Americans, why young Maoists beat their elders and school friends to death. why the Nazis invaded other nations and rounded up socialists and Romas and Jews. Hell, even the human sacrifices of pre-Columbian civilizations were to bring the rain. In the cause of doing great good, we step by step crept into the realm of destroying Vietnamese villages in order to save them.
When the reasons sound so compelling.... we're going to be invaded, our survival depends on this outcome, the other side is a madman, god wills that we do this .... what might prevent me (at least) from being swept up in the same fervor? What line do I draw, what threshold do I create that prevents me from being inveigled into supporting something heinous? The only lessons that seems clear to me are
(1) Sacrifice must result in some real, material good. For all of the urgings of Mao and Stalin, collectivization resulted in a FALL in output. For all of our interventions, the people we invaded suffered more harm than good. For all of the humans sacrificed, the rain didn't come anyway.
(2) If you must spill blood to support your "idea", then your idea isn't very good.
I'm therefore not persuaded that our interventions were necessary or just. Overall, most people were poorer and more oppressed after our involvement than before. The rationale for killing and oppressing people based on ideas like "freedom", "democracy", and "anti-communism" are comparable to killing people for a "new society" and "worker solidarity". They are just words.
If you want to help, help. Support the things you think need to be done. Build schools, dig wells, plant trees, build clinics. Shut out the oppressors from your support and from your economic dealings. Defend, with deadly force if necessary, those who are being killed. I think if you follow those rules, then you will not add to senseless, useless misery but will make things better for more people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No room for misinterpretation there, Signy!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... has done so with good intentions, or at least good excuses."
I'm not sure I agree with that.
Brutal dictators have terrorized entire countries simply to garner more wealth. People have carried out that brutality simply b/c they were paid and their own nature didn't forbid it. The unaffected have gone along with it b/c it wasn't their problem. Targets have gone along with it b/c they felt their best chance of survival was to comply rather than resist.
I don't see that there has to be some overarching positive social 'value' that people subscribe to that allows utter brutality to propagate and endure in a society.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wanted to post this as a separate item.
Geezer is confused (whether intentionally or not) about the terminology. He mistakes a 'positive lesson' with a 'negative example'.
It is possible to learn a 'positive lesson' from a 'negative example'. I've read that about 10% of abused children do so - they decide that they will never treat their child - sometimes anyone - the way they were treated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(1) Sacrifice must result in some real, material good. For all of the urgings of Mao and Stalin, collectivization resulted in a FALL in output. For all of our interventions, the people we invaded suffered more harm than good. For all of the humans sacrificed, the rain didn't come anyway.
(2) If you must spill blood to support your "idea", then your idea isn't very good.
I definitely agree with these.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay Geezer- Rest assured, the lessons I've learned from watching Republicans have been positive ones. In fact, I've tried to learn lessons from history- hopefully, universal lessons that can endure regardless of society or vantage point, my essential definitions of right and wrong, honed by the horrors of history.
There, how's that?
I would have said "useful lessons", since I'd guess to most people "positive lessons" means something good learned, rather than a cautionary tale.
Quote:
Every leader .... every single one... who has visited great horror on his population (or others) has done so with good intentions, or at least good excuses. There is no leader who has ever said I'm going to kill 30% of the population and terrorize the rest just because I can.
Not sure I can agree with that. I'm sure you can think of leaders who you believe were thinking "I'm going to take everything of value out of this country so I can live the high life, and when folks finally turn on me I'll head for someplace with no extradition carrying a suitcase full of dollars and my Swiss bank account numbers." or "My ego demands that I have total power of life or death over my subjects, and I may have to kill a few every now and then to make sure the message is clear." in your definition of "good intentions."
I don't believe that everyone is a hero in their own mind.
Quote:Or to get in on the loot or move up in the Party.
And those who willingly participate in brutality, from the workers and peasants in early Russia to the cadres of young revolutionaries in the Great Leap forward, did so for good and noble reasons.
Quote:That was straight land grab. No noble reasons there, except as window dressing.
It happens in every society... why we genocided native Americans.
Quote:Religious mania? Mao worship?
why young Maoists beat their elders and school friends to death.
Quote:
why the Nazis invaded other nations and rounded up socialists and Romas and Jews.
Gotta have a scapegoat.
Quote:
When the reasons sound so compelling.... we're going to be invaded, our survival depends on this outcome, the other side is a madman, god wills that we do this .... what might prevent me (at least) from being swept up in the same fervor?
Sometimes the other side IS a madman.
Quote:
What line do I draw, what threshold do I create that prevents me from being inveigled into supporting something heinous? The only lessons that seems clear to me are
(1) Sacrifice must result in some real, material good. For all of the urgings of Mao and Stalin, collectivization resulted in a FALL in output. For all of our interventions, the people we invaded suffered more harm than good. For all of the humans sacrificed, the rain didn't come anyway.
But how do you tell? If you think, as you mentioned above, that Stalin and Mao believed their sacrifice (of others) would result in some real, material good (I don't BTW), how do you know until it works or doesn't? Same with U.S. interventions. If the folks who planned them did so believing their sacrifice (of others) would result in real, material good, why do you condemn them so strongly? I again note that the places that U.S. intervention didn't work at all (Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.) aren't exactly the greatest places to live.
Quote:
(2) If you must spill blood to support your "idea", then your idea isn't very good.
The Allies in WWII spilt plenty of blood in order to support their "idea". Sometimes when your "idea" is threatened, force is the only response that's going to work.
Quote:
I'm therefore not persuaded that our interventions were necessary or just. Overall, most people were poorer and more oppressed after our involvNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I'm pretty sure that if the old U.S. Cold Warriors had the 20/20 hindsight available to us today, they'd have done things differently, and probably less heavyhandedly. I'm afraid that if Stalin and Mao and their successors had the same hindsight, things would have been a lot worse for a lot more people."
Now, this comes across as just one of those internalized propaganda pieces you just assume everyone else is going to accept.
Intentions can be judged by results, especially over time. It's rare to get a good result accidentally with bad intentions iterated continuously. And China got a good result compared to, say India. China must have had good intentions at the start. B/c look at the result.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hmmm... I also said "good excuses". I'm giving our fearless leaders the benefit of the doubt here, because I'm pretty certain that nearly everything we ever did in the Mideast had to do with oil, and everyplace else was in support of capitalism. But I'm sure there were SOME people who believed in that shining city on a hill. It sounded good, anyway. So let's go with that, just to be nice.
Not sure I can agree with that. I'm sure you can think of leaders who you believe were thinking "I'm going to take everything of value out of this country so I can live the high life, and when folks finally turn on me I'll head for someplace with no extradition carrying a suitcase full of dollars and my Swiss bank account numbers." or "My ego demands that I have total power of life or death over my subjects, and I may have to kill a few every now and then to make sure the message is clear." in your definition of "good intentions." I don't believe that everyone is a hero in their own mind.
Quote:Well, that's the problem here, there, and everywhere: You try a policy and you're sure it;s going to work. But it doesn't, and so you think the answer is to try it again, just harder. Mao didn't believe that his Great Leap Forward wasn't. We couldn't believe that killing a million or so in Vietnam didn't make the nation better. At some point you've got to realize that button doesn't work, and killing people doesn't make it work any better.
But how do you tell? If you think, as you mentioned above, that Stalin and Mao believed their sacrifice (of others) would result in some real, material good (I don't BTW), how do you know until it works or doesn't? Same with U.S. interventions. If the folks who planned them did so believing their sacrifice (of others) would result in real, material good, why do you condemn them so strongly? I again note that the places that U.S. intervention didn't work at all (Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.) aren't exactly the greatest places to live.
Quote:The Allies were attacked with armies. There was more than an "idea" at stake.
The Allies in WWII spilt plenty of blood in order to support their "idea". Sometimes when your "idea" is threatened, force is the only response that's going to work.
Quote:The funny thing is, where people really WERE getting killed en masse (Ukraine, China), we didn't do anything. And in places where we DID intervene, people really weren't getting killed... until we started the killing ourselves, anyway. Too many of our "interventions" were into nations which had elected moderate reformers... shall I go over the list again?
But in many countries, people were already being killed and oppressed in the name of the "new society" or "worker solidarity". Should we have let that continue? Would the people there have ended up even poorer and more oppressed if socialism/communism had succeeded? Countries with former and existing socialist and communist regimes generally don't have a real good track record of either economic prosperity or personal freedom when under those regimes.
Quote:All the more reason not to descend to his level.
Sometimes the other side IS a madman.
Quote:Actually, they had a pretty good record of economic prosperity. I can point to India versus China,, for example, Russia before and after the fall of the USSR, and Brazil during and after the military juntas, as very specific examples of relative prosperity.
Countries with former and existing socialist and communist regimes generally don't have a real good track record of either economic prosperity or personal freedom when under those regimes.
Quote:
And when the oppressors go to other oppressive countries for help, troops, arms, etc.? If you build schools and they blow them up or attackNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have almost never seen the USA decide in favor of doing "as little harm as possible"... If we took HALF of our military budget and put that into development, we all would be better off.
True that! Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex. Did you see Lord of War? Great movie based on a real guy.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just spent an owr catching up on this topic. Lots uv well considered stuff. (research project idea for Stanford: duz Firefly attract smarter people or duz it make people smarter?). And sum good gloating to! My fave wuz the Youtube rant.
A frend uv mine iz trapped in the Fox/GoP eko chamber and wuz very confident that Romney wuz going to win wen he wuz here on Tuezday. Got a very glum email the next day. hehehehehe!
He had sum uv the standard Fox fearmongering claptrap about an Obama 2nd term and the usual broken Libertarian small government babble, all in a tone indicating that he had Dust In The Wind playing on repeat all day.
Herez my reply:
Quote:
Plenty of examples of smaller governments around now. Doesnt work.
Think of the destruction an individual or organization can cause with our technology, wether thru ambitions of empire or careless exploitation. There needs to be an entity with the power to make and enforce wise rules to keep things from going to hell.
About the American Experiment.
"...in order to form a more perfect union.."
This is why I believe the conservative philosophy fails the reality check. When was the experiment over? When did we perfect the country? 1955? 1985? Are we supposed to go back and park the country in the Golden Reagan era or Leave It To Beaver fantasy world?
There may be no such thing as a perfect society. Anything the human race has established so far obviously hasnt lasted. The only way for a nation to continue in a changing world is to adapt to it. Accept the fact that we will always be in transition. To understand this is to realize that conservatism is just stubborn sentiment at best, and self destructive nonsense if carried too far.
We need leaders who have the foresight to choose the best future for the nation and the vision to make the transition as smooth as possible.
Really, the Republican party needz to change the way it selects its candidates. America needz them to do this. Like Rachel Maddow sed in that clip sumwun linked to, we need to hav SERIOUS oppozing viewz, not fact and lojik denying idiots with 50,000 watt tranzmitterz.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:heh heh heh!
not fact and lojik denying idiots with 50,000 watt tranzmitterz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:
I have almost never seen the USA decide in favor of doing "as little harm as possible"... If we took HALF of our military budget and put that into development, we all would be better off.
True that! Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex. Did you see Lord of War? Great movie based on a real guy.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
Looks like you forgot your alterna-spelling for a moment there.
Keep it up!
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
[Hmmm... I also said "good excuses". I'm giving our fearless leaders the benefit of the doubt here, because I'm pretty certain that nearly everything we ever did in the Mideast had to do with oil, and everyplace else was in support of capitalism. But I'm sure there were SOME people who believed in that shining city on a hill. It sounded good, anyway. So let's go with that, just to be nice.
This'll probably cover some of what you've said below, but I'd rather put it all in one place that spread it around in chunks.
I think that the U.S. Cold Warriors were concerned about more than oil or capitalism. I think they were worried about maintaining democracy and freedom. I figure thay thought they had good reason.
Look at what they knew in the early to mid 1960s. The had seen the Soviet Union genocide the Ukrainians by starvation so they could sell their grain to raise money. They had seen the armed takeover of Eastern Europe and the Balkans at the end of WWII, the removal (often fatal) of all possible opposition, and the installation of brutal puppet regimes. They had seen China invade and conquer Tibet. They had seen the North Korean proxies of the Soviets and China (and eventually Chinese troops as well) invade South Korea, with the loss of 36,000 Americans in resisting them. They had seen the brutal supression of revolts in several Eastern European countries. They saw the Cuban 'land reformers' armed with nuclear missles by Russia. They heard Chairman Khrushchev threaten to bury us.
When they saw the Soviets were providing military or financial support to "peoples armies" in Central and South America, they feared (not unreasonably, I believe)that many more Cubas or Polands could be at hand. And they took what they thought were the best actions to prevent this. From 50 years later, we can see that some of their plans were flawed, but that historical view is a luxury they didn't have.
Then again, do you think that the Soviets didn't want to spread their viewpoint, and the same type of government they had installed in Eastern Europe, into the Americas?
Quote:
Well, that's the problem here, there, and everywhere: You try a policy and you're sure it;s going to work. But it doesn't, and so you think the answer is to try it again, just harder. Mao didn't believe that his Great Leap Forward wasn't. We couldn't believe that killing a million or so in Vietnam didn't make the nation better. At some point you've got to realize that button doesn't work, and killing people doesn't make it work any better.
But unfortunately, sometimes killing a few million does work. See the Ukranian genocide for an example. Stalin got his money, and lots of empty land for ethnic Russians to resettle.
Quote:
The funny thing is, where people really WERE getting killed en masse (Ukraine, China), we didn't do anything.
That's kind'a disingenuous. Hardly anyone knew about the Ukraine until it was over, and there was really no chance to militarily stop the takeover of Tibet, the Cultural Revolution, or the Great Leap Forward.
Quote:Korea? Vietnam? The Viet Minh were killing Vietnamese who didn't care for communism when the French were still there.
And in places where we DID intervene, people really weren't getting killed... until we started the killing ourselves, anyway.
Quote:
Too many of our "interventions" were into nations which had elected moderate reformers... shall I go over the list again?
You could, and I'll note how many of your 'elected moderate leaders' weren't. Sukarno in Indonesia comes to mind, or maybe Gustavo Rojas in Colombia.
Quote:Quote:All the more reason not to descend to his level.
Sometimes the other side IS a madman.
But sometimes you do have to resist him, or be lost.
Quote:Quote:
CoNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think that the U.S. Cold Warriors were concerned about more than oil or capitalism. I think they were worried about maintaining democracy and freedom."
By eliminating or helping to eliminate genuinely democratically elected heads of state and installing or supporting brutal dictators? It seems like democracy and freedom were what they SAID, not what they DID. Given that what they DID was persistently aimed in the direction of dictators over decades of time (even as recently as arming the mujaheddin), I find it hard to credit them with intentions of freedom and democracy. It's about paying less attention to the talk, and more to the walk. And by their walk while they may have been anti-Soviet, it didn't make them pro-freedom.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Quote:
I guess you consider my lack of criticism as tacit support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yeah. My insufficently rabid criticism of Romney seems to have convinced many folks here of my tacit support, so why not?
Hello,
This is a valid point.
But I do want to stress it is not rabidness which impresses, but rather consistency. I know some of your positions thanks to long association on this board, but I do not know you to critique the 'right' as often as the 'left.' It suggests a bias. I am prepared to believe there is no bias. Are you prepared to believe me when I tell you that there has been an inbalance in commentary?
--Anthony
Well, since most of the criticism on this forum tends to be focused on the Right, spending all my time going "me too" seems kind'a pointless. Issues like marriage and reproductive rights I'll chime in, but after I see the same complaints over and over again, I don't even bother responding. Then again, a lot of that criticism IS rabid, over the top, or just plain bullshit, which I object to.
Also note that when I criticize the 'left', I generally do so on policy issues, not on Michelle's dress or Pres. Obama's place of birth. I don't make up 'funny' insulting names for Democratic politicians or post 'clever' pictures of their personal life. When I cite stuff, it's generally from mainstream media or sources, not partisan bloggers or publications.
I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation.
Look at this thread. Who starts throwing insults? Who will throw more after reading this post?
Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not. You enter into it purposefully and energetically and one-sidedly. You say the site is strongly liberal. Fine, I agree. But why do you feel the evident need to counter, and redress this wave of liberal opinion? I compare you to someone like CTS, another professed liberatarian who I see as fairly centrist. She criticises both sides, but mainly just stays clear of the partisan fray. She doesn't have the strange, anti-liberal compulsion that you have.
Even in your above post you reveal your anti-liberal bias:
Quote:
I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation.
That's supposed to be a list of specifically liberal traits?? Ha! See, you pay lip-service to the idea that both sides engage in ugly partisanship, but in your mind you associate it specifically with one side. Geezer, say hello to your bias.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
BTW. Just want to note that I enjoy actually discussing stuff again, instead of exchanging insults. I'll be nice if you will.
I'm having this weird idea that you're my Dad in cyber-disguise here...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not.
Is anyone's involvement here?
Quote:
You enter into it purposefully and energetically and one-sidedly.
Not sure about that. I support a lot of liberal social positions. I also disagree with both Democrats and Republicans about the need for an across the board tax increase.
Quote:Examples? List the policies liberals espouse that I have tried to counter. Mostly when when I've chimed in during this election cycle, it's because of the mean-spirited and often downright dishonest personal attacks on Republicans by the folks here. I generally got no brief for Republican policy, but it aggrivates me to see so much bullshit thrown.
You say the site is strongly liberal. Fine, I agree. But why do you feel the evident need to counter, and redress this wave of liberal opinion?
Quote:
I compare you to someone like CTS, another professed liberatarian who I see as fairly centrist. She criticises both sides, but mainly just stays clear of the partisan fray. She doesn't have the strange, anti-liberal compulsion that you have.
If you (editorial 'you') have stayed out of the fray the past year, you wouldn't have posted much. And again, what liberal policies do I disagree with?
Quote:
Even in your above post you reveal your anti-liberal bias:Quote:
I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks in what is mostly a very Liberal forum. I don't hate the rich enough. I don't think that everyone who has a different view of what the country should be is evil (just wrong, maybe). I don't feel the need to type in ALL CAPS a lot, or personally attack the folks I disagree with except after quite a bit of provocation.
That's supposed to be a list of specifically liberal traits?? Ha! See, you pay lip-service to the idea that both sides engage in ugly partisanship, but in your mind you associate it specifically with one side.
When I'm discussing the actions of liberals on a liberal forum, and point out that a lot of the liberals exhibit those traits, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your assumption that I'm saying ONLY liberals do such things makes me think I've hit pretty close to home.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not.
Is anyone's involvement here?
But you CLAIM to be non-partisan - that's the difference.
Your assumption that I'm saying ONLY liberals do such things makes me think I've hit pretty close to home.
Are you claiming that Wulf, Rappy, 6ix et al DON'T engage in this? Is that your claim?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
When I'm discussing the actions of liberals on a liberal forum, and point out that a lot of the liberals exhibit those traits, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. 
First off, this isn't a "liberal forum" as you choose to refer to it. If it were a liberal forum, liberals here wouldn't come in for the vicious attacks that have gone on since the day I arrived. Simple as that. If you want to ignore the "I laugh at your tears" and ALL the other things tossed out here by Wulf, Rap, Six, Zit, Hero and others, you can choose to; that doesn't mean they don't happen. I would assume it moves back and forth over time, but since I've been here, the right wingers have been QUITE vocal, quite negative, and have had no compunction about expressing their views. There are sufficient number of them to hold their own quite nicely, and aside from Jong and possibly one or two others, they have been FAR uglier, certainly in their attacks on me, than I have seen going the other way.
You consistently call out liberals and talk about liberals in a negative vein. I do not see you talking about conservatives the same way. The consistency is what caused me to be confused because I had previously THOUGHT of you as pretty nonpartisan. I don't know when that changed or if I just didn't notice, but over time it became obvious to me where your bias was and I was forced to recognize it. Not because you periodically went after liberals, but because you do so CONSISTENTLY, seemingly without ever finding fault with anything/anyone on the right. It became too obvious for me to ignore, and confused me until I accepted your bias.
IF you had chosen to recognize that both sides have behaved negatively, that would be different. By calling out only liberals, you create an unspoken statement that conservatives don't. I, and others, have been quite clear in recognition of the fact that there is blame enough to go around on both sides, but you consistenly only call out liberals. That's the difference.
Claiming to be nonpartisan doesn't make you so; your ACTIONS and words speak to your partisanchip or lack thereof. Simple as that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just a few quick examples from your posts:
"Of course, being from a liberal source, they then go on to criticize this as not being good enough" http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=53303&mid=9
15118
I don't recall you ever dismissing things coming from "a conservative source"...in fact I often see quotes by you from Fox, and other "conservative" sources.
Back in '04, I guess I didn't notice the bias, or maybe there was less of it. But, "Kerry's (energy) plan would: Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' by responding " Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=6612&mid=8
4990
You posted at great length about the lies fact checkers had found in Biden's speech, saying "And those doggone conservative Republicans at the Washington Post just keep finding more DNC speech comments to pick on." Given the WaPo has both liberal and conservative columnists, I don't know which was doing the fact checking, but I'm guessing the implication was that the WaPo is actually liberal...? It's not, as far as I know. Liberals complain it's conservative; conservatives complain it's liberal.
You remarked that everyone was only picking on the Republicans' lies, despite the fact that I had put up a lengthy post quoting discrepancies fact checkers had found on BOTH sides.
Back in September you immediately responded to my thread about Clinton having "killed" at the Dem convention with "The truth, apparently." and link to an article which called one of Clinton's statements "a stretch", then followed up with a whole slew of quotes about untruths at the convention, including "And in other liar news, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz..." http://blu.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=52952
When asked why you were paying no attention to Ryan's many lies, you responded something to the effect of why should you, when others already were?
You got into a protracted argument about "...San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro said there have been 4.5 million “new jobs” under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office." by claiming that was "So not so actual or valid, perhaps." Problem is, claiming there were "NEW jobs" had nothing to do with jobs that were lost "since Obama took office" (which of course ignores the fact that we were losing jobs in massive numbers WHEN he took office and thereafter, before his policies took effect). The basic point being, and you kept arguing this, that saying there were "new jobs'" has nothing to do with jobs LOST, so the claim WAS "actual and valid".
Those are just a few samples. I've noticed sometimes you seem to have a particular bent for going after me and my posts. For example, you went after me for a metaphor about something going faster than a "'motzaball' (yes, I misspelled mozzaball) through hot chicken broth" by saying it was the absolute worst metaphor you'd ever seen, then brought it up AGAIN later, saying "learn how to spell". Apparently you really liked that one, which is just something I heard from a (yes, Jewish) friend years ago and found amusing.
Lately you've nailed on me a couple of times about my new signature...specifically in one instance, "So is this the "neener, neener" you don't do? Hypocrisy, thy name is Niki2." http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=53437&mid=9
16895
Mike responded: "Is it any more hypocritical than you calling others trolls?" which was in response to your "No point in discu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
First off, this isn't a "liberal forum" as you choose to refer to it.
Liberals do most of the posting here. You certainly do your share.
Quote:
You consistently call out liberals and talk about liberals in a negative vein.
I criticize liberals here for posting stuff I consider as personal attacks, slander, and lies that would otherwise go unremarked. If I criticize the Obama administration, it's for what I see as policy failures.
Quote:
By calling out only liberals, you create an unspoken statement that conservatives don't.
But you and others call out only conservatives for insults and demeaning accusations. Don't remember much seeing you criticize Mike or Story, for example, for their personal attacks. ETA: Not to mention your personal insults of conservatives here as well.
Once again, list the liberal policies you think I've actually disagreed with instead of making vague insinuations. Then we can talk.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kpo:
Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone's involvement here?
Yes. CTS, Byte, Riona - none of these argue enthusiastically for or against a particular side. They don't care which side is winning the partisan fray. You and I do. And the same thing that makes us care, is what makes us biased.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You enter into it purposefully and energetically and one-sidedly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that. I support a lot of liberal social positions.
The one does not preclude the other. And an interesting thing, the times I've heard you speak up about things like gay marriage it's been to criticise Obama ("he should've supported it sooner"), and never the Republicans. My charge against you is not that you're a typical conservative - you're clearly not - but that you have a strong anti-liberal bias. Hell, you don't even have to be closer to the GOP in terms of positions - you just have to fear and dislike the left more. How could that be? Perhaps you've spent a lifetime arguing against communism, and so have the left fixed as the bad guys. Or perhaps you see the left as coming into conflict more with your libertarian views, and that matters more to you than the social issues.
Quote:
Mostly when when I've chimed in during this election cycle, it's because of the mean-spirited and often downright dishonest personal attacks on Republicans by the folks here. I generally got no brief for Republican policy, but it aggrivates me to see so much bullshit thrown.
Does it aggravate you as much when Auraptor, Hero, Whozit, Wulf etc. do it? I'm guessing no. Because you don't see them as the problem. The reason I call you out on this is because I can see that I'm kinda the mirror of you: I see bullshit and dishonesty on the left, but I just roll my eyes at it and move on. Because those people to me, are not the real problem. You apparently do likewise to people on the right.
Quote:
Your assumption that I'm saying ONLY liberals do such things
You started the paragraph, "I'm aware that I'm not Liberal enough for the folks..." And then you said, "I don't hate the rich enough." It sounded very much like you were talking specifically about liberals. And the context is why you fall out with liberals, but not conservatives. So why talk about things both sides do? Also, although most of the current nastiness may come from the left, that hasn't always necessarily been true. At times, with folk like Kaneman and Wulfenstar I'd say the right has been worse. Did you ever come into conflict with those guys?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Amen KPO.
Oh, Geez, you make me laugh:Quote:
But you and others call out only conservatives for insults and demeaning accusations.
Talk about "unclear on the concept". I'M A LIBERAL! I'm an avowed liberal! You just made my point for me; given you only call out liberals, hence you are a conservative. Get it?Quote:
Don't remember much seeing you criticize Mike or Story, for example, for their personal attacks. ETA: Not to mention your personal insults of conservatives here as well.
There's your laugh for the day. You'd have to be blind not to have noticed the MANY times I have called out liberals here for getting down in the gutter and attacking our righties...SPECIFICALLY, BY NAME! Mike can probably produce quotes and links, since it's him I have gone after most often. Are you actually so blind that you've missed my castigation of the lefties here who've been as nasty sometimes as the righties???
Every single time I've ranted on about the nastiness here I have pointed out that it is on BOTH SIDES--in my opinion more frequent and uglier from the right, but I've never EVER said it was exclusively from the right! Ask anyone here who remembers the many times I've chastized people and wished to high heaven they wouldn't go on forever in threads doing the tit-for-tat thing.
Oh, my (wipes tears from eye), thank you for the giggles...
Or is that part of the "denial" stage...?Quote:
My charge against you is not that you're a typical conservative - you're clearly not - but that you have a strong anti-liberal bias.
Bingo. AlsoQuote:
the same thing that makes us care, is what makes us biased.
Bang on. You may not be a Republican, Geez, you may not be a "staunch conservative". But the anti-liberal bias is what causes people to see you as a righty, however you feel about policies. Essentially: You go after the lefties here and say negative things about the left "out there"; you ignore the same things from the right.
Self-awareness may be something with which you're not familiar. Me, not so much. I've often admitted my own nastiness; I've quite freely criticized the left; I've expressed sympathy for the right because I think their party has been pre-empted by the EXTREME right; I've chastized lefties here for being nasty; I've stated clearly that I want a viable Republican Party; and I've given points to people here who dislike me intensely when I agree with them. Yet I'm quite open that I'm a liberal (tho' an independent). How's about you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I admire the both of you for trying to reason with the old man.
I don't see it doing much good. He'll continue to claim he's a centrist while attacking the left and defending the right - its all he ever does.
But its a noble effort.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Just a few quick examples from your posts:
"Of course, being from a liberal source, they then go on to criticize this as not being good enough" http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=53303&mid=9
15118]
But they did in fact criticize Romney's selection of women for 42% of his cabinet.
"First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women."
You included it in a post criticizing Romney for not picking enough women. Don't I have the right to comment on what you're saying?
Quote:
Back in '04, I guess I didn't notice the bias, or maybe there was less of it.
Considering you weren't on the board until 07/11/2009, per your profile, I'm wondering how you noticed anything here. Who did you used to be? Rue?
Quote:
But, "Kerry's (energy) plan would: Provide $10 billion to help auto plants adapt to build high-tech ''cars of the future'' by responding " Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=6612&mid=8
4990
Why did you have to go back eight years to find something you THINK shows bias against Kerrys plan, when I ended that post with, "Not saying it's a bad idea, but..." which you mysteriously left off. And considering that both the Iraq war and the Bush Tax cuts were widely reported as "lining the pockets of the rich" seems likely such a proposal by Bush would get called that too.Quote:
You posted at great length about the lies fact checkers had found in Biden's speech, saying "And those doggone conservative Republicans at the Washington Post just keep finding more DNC speech comments to pick on." Given the WaPo has both liberal and conservative columnists, I don't know which was doing the fact checking, but I'm guessing the implication was that the WaPo is actually liberal...? It's not, as far as I know. Liberals complain it's conservative; conservatives complain it's liberal.
And other folks here posted about Romney's and Ryan's lies. Go give them a hard time as well.Quote:
Back in September you immediately responded to my thread about Clinton having "killed" at the Dem convention with "The truth, apparently." and link to an article which called one of Clinton's statements "a stretch", then followed up with a whole slew of quotes about untruths at the convention, including "And in other liar news, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz..." http://blu.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=52952
I'm beginning to get your drift. I have no right to disagree with you about anything, or express an opinion contrary to what you believe. Too bad.
Oh, and look at that first post you cited (the 'folders' one) for a wonderful example of liberals overdosing on personal insult and character assassination.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
My charge against you is not that you're a typical conservative - you're clearly not - but that you have a strong anti-liberal bias.
In real life I get along with liberals quite well, even in political discussions. Maybe it's just the particularly virulent brand I see here that sets me off.
Quote:
Does it aggravate you as much when Auraptor, Hero, Whozit, Wulf etc. do it?
Sometimes, but there's generally someone to call them on it, although usually with insults instead of actual rebuttal.
Quote:
The reason I call you out on this is because I can see that I'm kinda the mirror of you: I see bullshit and dishonesty on the left, but I just roll my eyes at it and move on. Because those people to me, are not the real problem. You apparently do likewise to people on the right.
So I'm a surrogate for your criticism of yourself?
$100.00 an hour, please.
Quote:
So why talk about things both sides do? Also, although most of the current nastiness may come from the left, that hasn't always necessarily been true. At times, with folk like Kaneman and Wulfenstar I'd say the right has been worse. Did you ever come into conflict with those guys?
Not too much, I always figured Kaneman was out there with PN, and Wulf seems to have enough problems. Besides, they didn't make a habit of insulting me .
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, Mark, I'm gonna give up. I thought somehow I could get through.
Before I do, however, I'll respond one last time.
As to the first, it was your crack "being from a liberal source" to which I was referring. You have every right to comment on anything; my point was the snark "being from a liberal source", which indicated your bias.
As to my remark about '04, I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that apparently your bias was clear back in '04, so when I came in I must have just missed it--previously I thought you hadn't BEEN so biased when I first came here, and that something must have changed between then and now, get it? In '04 I had never heard of Firefly...I came here about a year or so after, having seen Serenity, someone made the connection for me and I fell in love with Firefly.
It's pretty obvious I'm not getting through. The issue at hand, as far as I've been concerned, is YOUR BIAS. That's all...not what you thought of policies, but that your phraseology indicates an anti-left bias. Can you follow that?
Ergo, the Kerry thing: "Why do I get the feeling that if Pres. Bush had suggested this, it would be classified as "Lining the Pockets of Big Business"? That's a snark, a rightie-type of snark, indicating where you're coming from.
And again "And other folks here posted about Romney's and Ryan's lies"--LIBERALS on this forum posted about Romney's and Ryan's lies. I expect that from them, and from me, we ADMIT we're liberals. You pointed out lies exclusively on the left--without, by the way, any mention of "given lies from the right have been pointed out, I thought I'd point out some on the left"...which you might note, I did in the LONG thread I put up listing lies ON BOTH SIDES. In other words, you focused solely on lies supposedly told by the left...thereby once AGAIN indicating your bias.Quote:
I have no right to disagree with you about anything, or express an opinion contrary to what you believe. Too bad.
Now THAT's truly pathetic! The debate is whether you have a pro-right--or if you will, anti-left--bias. I provide examples. You don't address the examples of your writing, just the things to which they refer, and at no time do you say anything which argues the fact that you're biased. Instead you reach waaaaaaay out there to say I'm indicating you've got no right to disagree with me or express a contrary opinion. Wow. Some reach.
To be absolutely clear--tho' I've said this over and over and over AGAIN when Rap or you or any of your rightie friends have used that little ploy: ANYONE can say ANYTHING here or disagree with ANYONE else or express ANY opinion. The others on this board will interpret what they say, agree or disagree with it, OR POINT OUT THAT WHAT THEY WRITE INDICATES A BIAS in favor of Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, right or left. WE are saying you are distinctly biased against the left--or toward the right, or whatever. That is the issue at hand. You choose not to address that issue. That's fine. My accusation (and that of others) continues to stand unchallenged.
Finally,Quote:
Oh, and look at that first post you cited (the 'folders' one) for a wonderful example of liberals overdosing on personal insult and character assassination.
You continue to make me smile. When and where, specifically, did I say liberals were free of personal insults and character assassinations? You'll have to point it out to me, because I've never claimed it, and I've been clear--once again, and I note you didn't address it--over and over and over to state that there is enough blame to go around ON BOTH SIDES. I believe there is more ugliness on the right--that's my right to believe. But both sides have engaged in ugliness, I say that freely as an avowed liberal/leftie/whatever.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Who did you used to be? Rue?
Hello,
If I had to guess who Niki2 used to be, I'd guess that she was the previous Niki. I'm supposing that's the significance of the 2.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just spotted your post Anthony. Originally I tried to sign up as Niki...it told me the name already existed, so I signed up as Niki2. Just to clarify.
You take care now, mister; you are one of the most imaginative posters I know in the gentle way you go about it. I wish we could clone you...on left, right and center! Unfortunately we cannot, so we'll continue to be frustrated by the unavowed ugliness on both sides, including that which pretends not to be ugly, or not to be right-wing.
Take care, you. 
I bow to your gentleness.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Thanks for the clarification, Niki. But I get just as riled up as anyone on any number of topics. I try to be better than I am, though.
Universal human quest, I think. ;-)
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Feh, I don't pretend to not be partisan or have an agenda, nor do I pretend to be polite - although if I plan to be completely unreasonable about something I make that pretty clear up front.
And while I don't self-identify as "liberal", to say I've never had my knuckles rapped by liberal posters for being... unkind... is somewhat disingenious cause I've caught everything from rolled eyes to merry hell for it, and to say I've never called out or even on occasion gone toe-to-toe with "liberal" posters is absolute horseshit as well as some of those debates/confrontations have been far more brutal than any exchange with conservatives, who I mostly ignore or take pity on cause I consider some chunk of em here to be mentally ill - one noteable exception being Jongsie cause he's capable of reason.
HKCav said something a while back about what happens to folk when "side" becomes more important than "right", and he had a big point there - me, I care about "right"(morally, although based on a different set of morals, mind you) without caring about "side", and yet I seethe with condemnation not for partisan reasons, but because of the outrageous inhumanity displayed by modern conservatism which has transmogrified into a bizarre form of insanity combined with wishing for a better days that never was instead of objectively acting on the plain realities.
Oh, and speaking of calling bullshit...
I know of only ONE topic that'll get Anthony "riled" and even then it's a lot like watching Ned Flanders get pissed off, hell I don't think your CAPABLE of holding a longterm grudge, since you have to practically force yourself not to forgive certain people.
Me on the other hand.... wellllllll, you do know I drove that sumbitch from the game, I figure.
I *do* hold grudges - but there's both rationale and rules to it which fall into a morality most folk can't understand well even when I try to explain it, lets just say misogyny and bullying are asking for it, even if it results in the delivered retaliation being itself bullying and quite hypocritical, deliberately so.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahh, but Anthony, I didn't say you didn't get riled up. The mark of a "good" (if you will) human is not that they don't HAVE emotions, it's what they DO with those emotions. Most of us don't "do" as well as you do! ;o)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In real life I get along with liberals quite well, even in political discussions.
I'm accusing you of having an anti-liberal bias, not of being so rabidly partisan that you can't hold down friendships with liberals in real life. God, I would hope that few of us here are that bad.
Quote:
Maybe it's just the particularly virulent brand I see here that sets me off.
I did consider that maybe you weren't anti-liberal, but just anti the liberals on this forum - but then I remembered that the person who seems to aggravate you more than anyone is Niki. Is she the most 'virulent' poster here? The most nasty, the most dishonest and partisan? No, definitely not. What she IS, perhaps, is the person who pushes the liberal message more than anyone else. And that rankles everyone on the board who is anti-liberal - namely all of our right-wingers, and you.
Quote:
So I'm a surrogate for your criticism of yourself?
$100.00 an hour, please.
No criticism amigo. I fight right-wing bullshit because I see it as more damaging - mainly in that it advances the right-wing cause. Left-wing bullshit is also offensive - it's bullshit after all - but there is no urgent need to fight it. And if I have a criticism of myself it's NOT that I don't spend enough time fighting political bullshit on the internet...Quote:
Not too much, I always figured Kaneman was out there with PN, and Wulf seems to have enough problems. Besides, they didn't make a habit of insulting me.
You're mixing up cause and effect here. You didn't get insulted by them simply because you didn't get into debates with them. You only take on liberals, and so you only get insulted by liberals. That's the way the internet works. But the insults came AFTER you picked your fights - therefore they have nothing to do with why you picked the fights you did.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KPO, I am in awe. Well said, and then some, and without any personal animosity to speak of, too.Quote:
What she IS, perhaps, is the person who pushes the liberal message more than anyone else.
Izat what it is? Always been slightly confused as to why they hate me so MUCH...have to think about it, that may well be the answer. Unlike some here, I don't so much get into the extended personal tit-for-tat threads (except to complain about them IN them maybe ;o) ), but I do put up a lot of material with which I agree, which means it's exactly the opposite of anything with which THEY might agree, so you may be onto something there. Not of any importance, I just take it as it comes and they're incapable of hurting or upsetting me unless I try to engage them (even then, only pissing me off mildly), it just occurred to me now and again to wonder.Quote:
I fight right-wing bullshit because I see it as more damaging
goes for me, too. What they would DO with the power if they got it is what scares me--and we've had excellent illustrations of that ever since the Tea Party took over the GOP in 2010, what regulations/laws/etc., they've passed. That's what bothers me.Quote:
You're mixing up cause and effect here. You didn't get insulted by them simply because you didn't get into debates with them. You only take on liberals, and so you only get insulted by liberals. That's the way the internet works. But the insults came AFTER you picked your fights - therefore they have nothing to do with why you picked the fights you did.
MOST excellent. I couldn't have put it that well myself, but that's it in a nutshell, in my opinion.
You just went up several notches in my estimation--whether you like it or not ;o).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the kind words Niki. No, personal animosity's not really my thing, and I don't think Geezer's so bad. But he does come after you all the time, so I can understand you feeling differently.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What she IS, perhaps, is the person who pushes the liberal message more than anyone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Izat what it is?
I dunno, others have speculated differently. Only the righties can tell us - if they know themselves. Always been impressed with how you've handled it though.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is this thread scheduled to continue thru the 2016 election?
=========================
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Is this thread scheduled to continue thru the 2016 election?
=========================
I'm done with it. Niki and KPO can slag me in peace.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oonj, 
that he means it when he says he's quitting.
Looking back, I jumped into a thread where he was arguing with Sig--seems I took the heat off her (I've noticed he goes after her a lot, too, by the way). After that, I was merely RESPONDING to his attacks on me...
Given he put so much effort into going after Sig, me, and even KPO I see, it would be nice if he quit while he was "ahead"...sadly, saying he's done with it is probably for only this thread, not in general (we should be so lucky!), and given he gets some kick out of reminding me of my sig, I guess it won't be the end of it completely. 
At least it keeps him out of trouble elsewhere, I suppose, and it certainly doesn't bother me. I will, however, refrain from trying to communicate with him further and just put him back into the "snark and mock" category he was in before. As I said, it was worth a try...once. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, I vote with KIKI
Quote:Far as I can tell, Herr Geezer, you have not responded to this very on-point post. You ARE one-sided. You're not the objective rationalist you like to say you are. You are, however, a master rationalizer.
Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not.
Is anyone's involvement here?
But you CLAIM to be non-partisan - that's the difference.
Your assumption that I'm saying ONLY liberals do such things makes me think I've hit pretty close to home.
Are you claiming that Wulf, Rappy, 6ix et al DON'T engage in this? Is that your claim?
And on that note... back to our original discussion
Quote:I know KIKI responded to this point and said pretty much what I would have (to which you also didn't respond, BTW) but here's the thing:
This'll probably cover some of what you've said below, but I'd rather put it all in one place that spread it around in chunks.
I think that the U.S. Cold Warriors were concerned about more than oil or capitalism. I think they were worried about maintaining democracy and freedom. I figure thay thought they had good reason.
Look at what they knew in the early to mid 1960s. The had seen the Soviet Union genocide the Ukrainians by starvation so they could sell their grain to raise money. They had seen the armed takeover of Eastern Europe and the Balkans at the end of WWII, the removal (often fatal) of all possible opposition, and the installation of brutal puppet regimes. They had seen China invade and conquer Tibet. They had seen the North Korean proxies of the Soviets and China (and eventually Chinese troops as well) invade South Korea, with the loss of 36,000 Americans in resisting them. They had seen the brutal supression of revolts in several Eastern European countries. They saw the Cuban 'land reformers' armed with nuclear missles by Russia. They heard Chairman Khrushchev threaten to bury us.
When they saw the Soviets were providing military or financial support to "peoples armies" in Central and South America, they feared (not unreasonably, I believe)that many more Cubas or Polands could be at hand. And they took what they thought were the best actions to prevent this. From 50 years later, we can see that some of their plans were flawed, but that historical view is a luxury they didn't have.
Then again, do you think that the Soviets didn't want to spread their viewpoint, and the same type of government they had installed in Eastern Europe, into the Americas?
I have spent many posts trying to show you how we can use that historical view to create a way of thinking which would prevent us from again rationalizing our way into brutal, pointless mistakes... and you keep repeating the same rationalizations over and over. Something tells me you're not getting the point.
What was so all-fired awful about communism that we "fixed"? We were so worried about repression, we installed brutal military dictators who disappeared and tortured victims just like communist regimes? We were so worried about saving lives we killed - or aided in the killing of- millions? We were so worried about a population's well-being, we fostered an economic system of bleeding dry the already poor?
At what point, exactly, did we start doing more harm than good? What assumptions, what rationalizations, allowed us to do that? And how do we not do that again?
I know that you like to think of "our" actions as "good" because they have acceptable-sounding slogans like "freedom" and "democracy", but I want to look at what we DID, not listen to what we SAID. If I may be a little Biblical about this... By their works you shall know them. Judging by our "works"... the installation of the Shah of Iran, whose Savak was so brutal it embarrassed the CIA; the installation of Pinochet who disappeared thousands and
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Is this thread scheduled to continue thru the 2016 election?
=========================
To infinity, and beyond!
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I didn't read the rest of the posts. Geezer said he appreciated the discussion, so I wanted to put in one more reply to see if I could make my point any clearer. But real life caught up with me, so my reply was delayed. I assure you, unless I get a response which is an actual reply to my point, I will not continue. If three tries hasn't done it, then four isn't going to help.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Far as I can tell, Herr Geezer, you have not responded to this very on-point post. You ARE one-sided. You're not the objective rationalist you like to say you are. You are, however, a master rationalizer.
Kiki does quite well making up what she thinks I think, so I have no desire to interfere with her conversation with herself. If she wants to talk about issues instead of pretending to read my mind, that's fine.
Quote:
... and you keep repeating the same rationalizations over and over. Something tells me you're not getting the point.
Strange, but I feel exactly the same way about you.
Quote:And once again, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Balkans, North Korea, etc. You don't think that folks, after seeing the awful things that happened there might feel that the didn't want communism any closer than it already was?
What was so all-fired awful about communism that we "fixed"?
Quote:
We were so worried about repression, we installed brutal military dictators who disappeared and tortured victims just like communist regimes? We were so worried about saving lives we killed - or aided in the killing of- millions? We were so worried about a population's well-being, we fostered an economic system of bleeding dry the already poor?
In some cases. In some cases not. Then again, would the communists have done any better? And once again, compare, say, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, Vietnam and Thailand, North and South Korea.
Quote:
Yes, I know... it's confusing. In times of civil war, when both sides are shooting and both sides will claim self-defense, whose side do we pick?
My answer is: if neither side is clearly fostering development... building schools, clinics and roads, digging wells or creating jobs... stay out of it militarily. Assist whatever development is going on. Do good, not harm.
And when the side that doesn't want development blows up the wells and kills the diggers, blows up the schools and kills the teachers, blows up the infrastructure and kills the engineers?
Quote:
War is a poor tool of peace. It is also a poor tool of development. Our collective interest is peace, prosperity, stability, and education.
No freedom in your list? And what about when one of the forces in that particular country thinks turmoil, want, and ignorance provide a more fertile ground for their ideas, and is willing to kill to get them?
I would be perfectly happy for our foreign policy to be carried out entirely by not taking sides and supporting economic, infrastructure, and educational development. Unfortunately, there are folks (and were folks during the cold war.The Viet Cong come to mind) who see development as dangerous to their goals, either because they want folks miserable as a recruiting tool, or because they think education or improvement for certain groups are against god's will. When this occurs, your idea of "just build another well" doesn't work, and tends to get innocent people who want a well killed. If you can come up with a peaceful solution to the folks who'll kill to prevent your development, I'd be glad to hear it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Freedom is a powerful word, and is almost always the word we choose to use when we go to war. But it seems to me that Freedom is seldom the primary motivating factor.
I don't trust the rallying cry to defend Freedom. We can't even win that battle at home, much less in a foreign land.
If aid and development don't work, I honestly think retreating from interference is often a better, if less popular, option.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER It's clear you have not yet gotten the point. Further discussion is not possible.
TONY
Quote:I agree. And we have lost a lot of our freedoms (and money) to the shibboleth of the military as being "the answer" to everything. You can't fight a "war on terrorism" or a "war on oppression". that's like fighting a "war on wars" or "fighting a war for peace". Those sayings are oxymorons.
I don't trust the rallying cry to defend Freedom. We can't even win that battle at home, much less in a foreign land.
If aid and development don't work, I honestly think retreating from interference is often a better, if less popular, option.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contains some pretty horrific language about indefinite preventive detention, and the NSA's cybersecurity plan allows boots on the ground in the USA. That's what comes of thinking of force and violence as universal tools... pretty soon, your whole society is militarized and it's applied to you as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony: Amen to everything you said. "Freedom" is a visceral term that virtually all civilizations have utilized at some time or other to get what they want out of their populace. It is also too easily "defined" to be other than it is, and there is no such thing as complete freedom anyway within society, so figuring out just what someone means by that is difficult. I also note it's used by many in this country who mean anything BUT freedom, more likely their own freedom to force others. I highly mistrust anyone using that word because of that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mitt Romney Goes After Pete Ass-Bandit Buttigieg
https://wibc.com/146905/mitt-romney-goes-after-pete-buttigieg/
Violent "Rolex Rippers" Caught by Gloating Selfies
http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullNews.asp?id=48333
and British Argentina discussion was here
UK reasserts Falklands are British territory as Argentina seeks new talks
https://apnews.com/article/falkland-islands-argentina-britain-agreemen
t-territory-db36e7fbc93f45d3121faf364c2a5b1f
Quote:
Britain has reasserted its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands after Argentina pulled out of a cooperation agreement and demanded new talks over the South Atlantic territory that sparked a 1982 war between the two countries.
The pronouncement came after Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero said on Twitter that he informed British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly about his country’s decision when the pair met on the margins of the Group of 20 summit in India last week.
“The Falkland Islands are British,” Cleverly tweeted late Friday. “Islanders have the right to decide their own future — they have chosen to remain a self-governing U.K. Overseas Territory.”
Earlier, Cafiero said he told Cleverly that Argentina had decided to pull out of a 2016 agreement in which the the two countries pledged to work together on a variety of issues. While that agreement sought to improve cooperation in the South Atlantic, both sides continued to assert their claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, known as Islas Malvinas in Argentina.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME