Somehow No One Seems To Think
Tom Kunich
"Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a
specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or
belief systems."
Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
ronaldo_jeremiah
It's customary, when giving a quote, to indicate the source of the
quote.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm
Laura Dawn Lewis?!
-rj
ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:
TK -
Do you get a lot of your rules for living at couplescompany.com?
http://www.couplescompany.com/Advice/Sexuality/index.htm
The collection of e-books at the bottom of the page looks especially
promising.
-rj
Howard Kveck
wrote:
> Here's a quote:
>
> "Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
> fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a
> specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or
> belief systems."
From "Picking Up the Pieces: Practical Guide for Surviving Economic Crashes" by
Sorcha Faal and David Booth
___________________________
"Note:. There is no such person as ³Sorcha Faal, Russian academic² ³Sorcha Faal²
is actually David Booth, an American computer programmer ³Sorcha² is alleged to be a
Russian academic but there is absolutely no record of anyone with such a name in
Russian academia. These periodic eruptions have absolutely no basis in any kind of
fact or reality and are typical of the nonsense bespangling the internet."
___________________________
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1874.htm
That's good - you chose a source that's completely worthless. As usual. Oh well, I
suppose you cold have chosen Jonah Goldberg. Oh, sorry, that'd have the same result.
> Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
> methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
What segment of society are the "Liberals" separating and persecuting or denying
equality?
This sounds like yet another case of Tom Kunich argument by assertion.
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Howard Kveck
ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Only On The Rag Four Times A Year" seems appropriate.
Fred Fredburger
What are you talking about?
ronaldo_jeremiah
>
> From "Picking Up the Pieces: Practical Guide for Surviving Economic Crashes" by
> Sorcha Faal and David Booth
Huh?!
I mean, either way this is delicious, but I traced the quote to that
flaky website I listed. Do you mean to say that badly-written chunk
is also in this book, verbatim?
I just checked. Apparently, it is.
Sweet, we just uncovered some plagiarism.
Still, I like couplescompany.com even better as a stupid-ass source.
-rj
ronaldo_jeremiah
FASCISM, Fred. He's talking about Fascism.
It seems that lame-o book actually quoted that lame-o essay from that
fucked-up family values self-help site. So, no plagiarism, just
pathetic scholarship.
Fred, here's a clearer description of fascism:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
-rj
RonSonic
Orwell was right, "nazi" and "fascist" have become synonyms for stuff we want
people to hate. There are real definitions for these words and they're
occasionally used correctly, but for the most part there's no need to bother
with them.
And, uh, your definition is wrong.
True there are plenty of fascists on the left (we may see them in action in
Denver) but that isn't why or how they got that way.
Ron
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
wrote:
Bullshit. Fascism, from the word "fascia," is a system
of government in which the population are governed by
an authoritarian structure led by roofers.
An earlier version of this system was known as
"Soffitism" but the roofers decided that sounded stupid,
so they changed the name. (However, the word survives
in the official governmental philosophy, "sophistry.")
Anyone who has tried to find a good roofer on less
than six months notice realizes that we live in a Fascist
state.
Some people say that Fascism is Evil. These misguided
people are suffering from a confusion that dates back to
when Noam Chomsky misheard a Fascist talking about
"eaves." Too embarrassing for a linguist to admit the
error, which is why we still have these unfortunate deluded
people. Nothing that six months at hard labor regrouting
the Capitol Dome couldn't cure.
Sincerely,
Ben
RBR Professor of Comparative Politics
William Asher
news:1cbb04b8-3826-4af6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
This is also where the term "gutter politics" comes from. Not to mention
"slate of candidates" and why when you get herpes on your head they call
it "shingles."
--
Bill Asher
Booted out of more academic institutions than he can count
(admittedly, that is not a big number)
Donald Munro
Pound and Gripper ?
Fred Fredburger
> On Mar 22, 9:32 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>> From "Picking Up the Pieces: Practical Guide for Surviving Economic Crashes" by
>> Sorcha Faal and David Booth
>
> Huh?!
>
> I mean, either way this is delicious, but I traced the quote to that
> flaky website I listed. Do you mean to say that badly-written chunk
> is also in this book, verbatim?
>
> I just checked. Apparently, it is.
>
> Sweet, we just uncovered some plagiarism.
Can you plagiarize non-existent people?
>
> Still, I like couplescompany.com even better as a stupid-ass source.
couplescollostomy.com is even MORE stupid-ass.
Fred Fredburger
> On Mar 22, 9:37 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Here's a quote:
>>> "Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
>>> fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality
>>> to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities
>>> or belief systems."
>>> Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
>>> methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
>> What are you talking about?
>
> FASCISM, Fred. He's talking about Fascism.
>
Yeah, but apropos of what? What motivated the outburst?
Oh, never mind.
> It seems that lame-o book actually quoted that lame-o essay from that
> fucked-up family values self-help site. So, no plagiarism, just
> pathetic scholarship.
But it was a nonexistent scholar anyway, so who are they going to sue?
Kyle Legate
>> Here's a quote:
>>
>> "Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
>> fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a
>> specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or
>> belief systems."
>>
>> Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
>> methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
>
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2008/02/planting-his-sp.html
However, you're already there, thanks to the conservatives:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/28/the_end_of_america_feminist_social
http://worldwide-sawdust.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1945
http://www.alternet.org/story/71881/?page=entire
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_warns_Tim_Russert_of_1223.html
Donald Munro
> Yeah, but apropos of what? What motivated the outburst?
r = new Random(time());
while (true)
{
if (r.value() > 0 && r.value() < 0.2) postGlobalWarmingRant();
if (r.value() > 0.2 && r.value() < 0.5) postGayAccusation();
if (r.value() > 0.5 && r.value() < 0.8) postLiberalRant();
if (r.value() > 0.9 && r.value() < 1) postInventedSomethingClaim();
}
Donald Munro
Yes, we're working on a new world order as a April 1st present for greg
(he from whom all chow and afternoon rides come).
Get in the bus (or Prius) and join us before we assimilate you.
Michael Baldwin
Tom, so far your subject/header phrase has been _supported_ in this
threads replies!
I'm a Libertarian. When it comes to political discussions, I invest
little if any energy, regarding politics, in anyone over the age of 30.
For the past 35 years I've been a self study of our nations framers &
founders. I've yet to "discover" a flaw in their _original_ works.
I've submitted to the possibility that our nation has "mis-placed"
it's moral compass. I've used the word _moral_ in the sense that the
framers & founders did.
Likewise, I'm not ashamed to call myself an American in the "Spirit
of 76".
Well there, that should fan the embers!
Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
Fred Fredburger
Perfect. I especially like the object named r. I say that sometimes when
I read Kunich-isms.
MagillaGorilla
I don't understand this as a standalone post to initiate a thread. This
would be like posting the definition of what cereal means and then
sitting back and waiting for people to try to figure out what the fuck
it has to do with cycling.
Why does everybody in here talk by implication? Just come out and say
what you mean.
Magilla
Fred Fredburger
Re: Libertarianism. Slave O' Da State pushes that agenda nicely. Some
might disagree, but I basically agree with him.
Re: Over the age of 30. Do you find that those under the age of 30 are
more open/reasonable in political discussions? I would have expected the
age to be ~20 years lower,
Re: "framers & fathers...". There's been MUCH discussion and
re-invention of the founding fathers. So much, in fact, that I don't
know what anyone means when they refer to them any more. Most people
have a fuzzy idea of what liberty means, and they're sure the ff's would
agree with them. So one could generally replace the phrase "founding
fathers" with "those guys who lived a long time ago and agreed with
everything I say". In any event, you'd have to be more specific if you
wanted to fan any flames.
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Michael Baldwin
>Over the age of 30. Do you find that those
>under the age of 30 are more open/reasonable in political
>discussions?
Fred, to answer your question, those under the age of thirty are my
future leaders when I'm really old and tired. That's why I invest my
time in them.
I'm currently working with 3 young men all under the age of 25. While
their knowledge of history is rather weak, their ability to understand
why things are the way they are today is refreshing. They don't enter
the debate with bias. They clearly understand the meaning of the
following phrase, reward of freedom is responsibility.
The majority of my friends (40 - 60 years of age) are stuck in the
eighties. Many willingly support the established system of government
social _AND_ corporate welfare programs. "Get "it" while the gettin's
good." they all say. That's what I mean when I say we as a
nation have lost our moral compass.
But hey. When you're dealing with a general populace that wants to
blame "government" for everything and then have a "government" willing
to accept that blame, what more could a career politician, bureaucrat
or lobbyist hope for?
Example - I think the tradegy at Waco is my fault. Had I voted for
George Bush instead of Ross Perot then maybe Bill Clinton would not have
become President. Same holds true for China's "most favored nation
status", NAFTA, the bombing of the WTC, our embassys, and the U.S.S.
Cole, Bin Laden's escape from justice, 9/11, the Iraq war, the price of
oil, all my fault. Not "government".
Fred Fredburger
When I run, my arches succumb to plantar fascism. That's why I no longer
run and also why all triathletes should be rounded up and put into
re-education camps.
Fred Fredburger
Dumbass -
That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
$50 that says Kunich will remain confused.
Donald Munro
> When I run, my arches succumb to plantar fascism.
Thats because you're a liberal foot soldier.
RonSonic
Triathlons ARE re-education camps. They keep having to do that until they learn
better.
Ron
Bill C
> Example - I think the tradegy at Waco is my fault. Had I voted for
> George Bush instead of Ross Perot then maybe Bill Clinton would not have
> become President. Same holds true for China's "most favored nation
> status", NAFTA, the bombing of the WTC, our embassys, and the U.S.S.
> Cole, Bin Laden's escape from justice, 9/11, the Iraq war, the price of
> oil, all my fault. Not "government".
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
God damn it Mike! That's un-American. Don't you know, EVERYTHING, is
someone elses fault. Everyone is a victim. There's NO such thing as
personal responsibility in this land. That's individualist BS get with
the program. I'm sure you've offended people and will shortly be
visited by the PC police, under the modified 1st amendment that
guarantees the freedom to not be offended by anyone.
Unless of course it's done in the name of "correctness":
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/03/23/5083386-ap.html
Iraq war protesters disrupt Chicago Easter mass with fake blood
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
These'll be folk heroes and probably be working for MoveOn, or Obama
by next week. His Pastor, Wright, is already being painted as a
victim. It was obviously the fault of those folks attempting to
worship during one of their holiest days for provoking this.
Bill C
Paul G.
> For the past 35 years I've been a self study of our nations framers &
> founders. I've yet to "discover" a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What WAS
forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul
Paul G.
> Here's a quote:
>
> "Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
> fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a
> specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or
> belief systems."
>
> Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
> methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
Fascists are by definition conservatives. Your definition it pure
bullshit. All you need is a dictionary.
-Paul
Michael Baldwin
>of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
>a flaw in their _original_ works.
>Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
>are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
>WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
>-Paul
Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong,
however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have
meant genocide in the pre-1800's. At the time, the debate over the
issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should
end, but rather how to end it.
Again in pre-1800, post colonial America, only _landowners_ had a
vote. The F&F's debated at length over the issue of how to establish a
system of land grants so that _landholders_ could vote as well.
As far as the electoral college goes, how else can a democratic
republic be without such a system? Democracy in itself is mob rule.
The F&F's knew that say, New York shouldn't elect the president and I
for one agree with that premise yet today.
So you see Paul. If the _original_ system was "flawed",
involuntary servitude may still be in effect yet today. Woman may still
be without a voice or a vote. And some vast city called "Voteropolis"
would elect our nation's president.
The F&F's devised a system of self-government which will always serve
those willing to exercise their rights to participate in it. A federal
system serving the interests of individuals, not just the majority, for
the sake of an entire nation.
Howard Kveck
Fred Fredburger <FredFre...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.
> That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
> $50 that says Kunich will remain confused.
That's not much of a bet, is it? There's not much hope of him *not* remaining
confused.
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> These'll be folk heroes and probably be working for MoveOn, or Obama
> by next week. His Pastor, Wright, is already being painted as a
> victim.
Cite on the positive commentary by left-leaning people of stature on this, please?
As well, how about a cite by a left-leaning person of stature painting Wright as a
victim?
Along those lines, why is it that Wright and Obama have been such a focal point?
Yeah, the media say that Wright is "un-American" and has said "anti-American" things.
The media demands that Obama "denounce" Farrakhan when Obama did not ask for his
endorsement. Yet there no focus on McCain and his religious backers, John Haggee or
Rod Parsley and their un-American statements. McCain sought out those guys for their
endorsements.
Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're white, it's a
different story.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/
Howard Kveck
"Paul G." <car...@egine.com> wrote:
Ron nailed it earlier with this statement: "Orwell was right, "nazi" and "fascist"
have become synonyms for stuff we want people to hate." And Tom needs more than a
dictionary.
Howard Kveck
MLB...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> The often prophetic Tom Kunich wrote,"Somehow No One Seems To Think"
>
>
> Tom, so far your subject/header phrase has been _supported_ in this
> threads replies!
Mike, the only person that has written anything that supports the subject/header
is the original poster, Mr. Kunich himself. He picked a phrase out of some wacko
rightwing site that agreed with some aspect of his hate- and fear-filled worldview
and posted it. He got the mocking he earned.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> >For the past 35 years I've been a self study
> >of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
> >a flaw in their _original_ works.
> >Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
> >are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
> >WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
> >-Paul
>
> Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong,
> however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have
> meant genocide in the pre-1800's. At the time, the debate over the
> issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should
> end, but rather how to end it.
Bullshit. For a self-professed old guy who evaluates
the ignorance of his under-25 colleagues, your
knowledge of history is crap. Many representatives
of the slave states argued that slavery was both
permanently economically necessary, and morally justifiable.
Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into
the constitution was a desperate and morally repugnant
deed. They did it because they felt keeping the free
and slave states in the same union was more important
for the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't
written it in, the slave states could have taken their
ball (and chain) and gone home. But these people
also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw.
Nothing is perfect; pretending that the Republic was
not born in sin, when the three-fifths rule was written
into the Constitution, is willful blindness.
Ben
Howard Kveck
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
One flaw with the "original intent" (of the Constitution) argument is that times
change and what may have seemed like a great idea back then turns out to be not
particularly good now. The Founders knew this, and that's why they made it so the
Constitution could be ammended.
Ryan Cousineau
Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article
> <8031895f-43e9-4ca9...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:43 pm, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> > > >For the past 35 years I've been a self study
> > > >of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
> > > >a flaw in their _original_ works.
> > > >Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
> > > >are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
> > > >WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
> > > >-Paul
> > Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into
> > the constitution was a desperate and morally repugnant
> > deed. They did it because they felt keeping the free
> > and slave states in the same union was more important
> > for the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't
> > written it in, the slave states could have taken their
> > ball (and chain) and gone home. But these people
> > also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw.
> > Nothing is perfect; pretending that the Republic was
> > not born in sin, when the three-fifths rule was written
> > into the Constitution, is willful blindness.
>
> One flaw with the "original intent" (of the Constitution) argument is that
> times change and what may have seemed like a great idea back then turns out to be
> not particularly good now. The Founders knew this, and that's why they made it so
> the Constitution could be amended.
I'm not a constitutional scholar (I reboot computers for a living), but
I don't think that's a flaw with "original intent" interpretations of
the constitution (is that still what we're talking about?) I think
"originalism" is largely a defensible judicial philosophy, and the
forseen solution for the constitution deviating from the needs and the
rights assumed for the people is the amending formula.
Women's suffrage (or for that matter, sufferage for men other than
land-owners) could not be seen to emanate from the penumbrae of the
constitution except by the most fantastical constitutional interpreter.
On the other hand, that right could be enacted through the amending
formula, and although the battle for the 19th amendment was long and
boring and (in retrospect) obviously the right side of the argument, the
system worked.
The constitution of any nation should not be seen as a perfect document.
But it's a bad idea to change its interpretation substantially outside
the means of an amendment.
That said, it is possible for a constitution to be so poorly constituted
that only re-creating it (sometimes in a fundamentally
extraconstitutional fashion; in modern times, usually by some reasonably
legitimate constitutional convention followed by a national referendum
in the best cases) can save the nation.
I don't know which nation has the hardest-to-amend constitution; Canada
has a very hard bar to attain, not to mention considerable complexity:
most substantial amendments require ratification by 2/3rds of the
provinces (ie at least 7) representing at least 50% of the population
(at present, that would have to include at least Ontario or Quebec among
the ratifiers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada#Amending_formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_attempts_to_amend_the_Canadian_
Constitution
Basically, the constitution has had no substantial amendments since its
enactment.
Conversely, Singapore has a very easy amending formula (same amendment
has to be passed by the legislature twice, separated by a general
election), and the UK and Sweden have virtually no formal constitution
at all, but make it work regardless.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Bill C
> In article <46e0d780-7106-4abd-ab40-d5db9da47...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Howard I expected your kneejerk. I had at least hoped you'd say
attacking the religious service was a bad thing. You keep harping on
me to do that with your examples, and I usually do, though sometimes
not clearly enough for your tastes.
I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group. How about
the arsons on the west coast by ELF/ALF, right wing?
All the protests that led to noraml people having their rights
voiolated over the last few days, any right wing?
The point is that the vast majority of the 'Direct Actions" are done
by, supported by, and paid for by folks from the left. They violate
the rights of other citizens, cost them money, time, and stress.
You happen to agree with most of it so it's not a problem for you. I
agree with them protesting, but not in a way that denies other people.
As for Wright I've lived with those clowns had my kids terrorised by
a nutjob evangelical precher in military housing. That's a whole other
story. I have NO sympathy. He can say whatever the hell he wants, but
he's preaching hate and inciting racist incidents. I'd equate him more
to David Duke.
I'd argue the double standard goes the other way on speech, at least.
John Rocker got run out of baseball. Reggie White's still a hero.
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:8031895f-43e9-4ca9...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Many representatives of the slave states argued that
> slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
> and morally justifiable.
Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.
Bill C
Hey Tom
Not sure where you're coming from. I think he wrote exactly what he
meant, and unless I've missed something huge he's perfectly correct in
what he wrote. Some of them were still making that argument even after
the Civil War. I'd bet you could find morons to still make that
argument today too.
Bill C
Bill C
>
> Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're white, it's a
> different story.
>
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
To comment specifically on your link he makes many good points. You've
also seen me, MANY, times call the right wing nutcases Anti-American
scumbags and bigots. I'm still waiting on you to admit that there
might even be the possibility of maybe there being any slightly
extremist positions or actions taken by anyone on the left.
Sorry you did admit that FARC with their murdering and kidnapping
were "Kinda Shitty". Glad you could go that far.
Bill C
Paul G.
> >For the past 35 years I've been a self study
> >of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
> >a flaw in their _original_ works.
> >Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
> >are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
> >WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
> >-Paul
>
> Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong,
> however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have
> meant genocide in the pre-1800's. At the time, the debate over the
> issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should
> end, but rather how to end it.
Sorry Mike, that is just nuts. The pro-slavery Founding Fathers were
quite comfortable with slavery, and had plenty of moral arguments in
favor of it. For example, the bible sets forth many rules for how one
should treat slaves. That obviously implies God's approval of slavery.
Just google "slavery bible" to find a long list of pro-slavery bible
quotes like this:
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a
rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished: for he is his money [property]."
Now clearly, someone living a bible-centered life could justify not
only having slaves, but also beating them, and even beating them to
death, as long as the slave lived at least a day after the beating.
So it was easy to justify slavery on moral grounds- it's in the bible!
-Paul
Tom Kunich
news:8c34e082-d29d-406d...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 9:25 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8031895f-43e9-4ca9...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Many representatives of the slave states argued that
> > > slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
> > > and morally justifiable.
> >
> > Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
> > representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.
>
Maybe I'm coming from the idea that the most white Americans killed in a war
was that war to free us from slavery. Scum sucking nobodies like trash
talking fools here are only interested in making themselves appear to be
nice Liberal when the truth is that they would NEVER actually take any
actions themselves. Instead they pretend to be superior beings with the
ability to judge people and circumstances they can't even imagine.
Donald Munro
> Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into the constitution was a
> desperate and morally repugnant deed. They did it because they felt
> keeping the free and slave states in the same union was more important for
> the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't written it in, the
> slave states could have taken their ball (and chain) and gone home. But
> these people also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw. Nothing
> is perfect; pretending that the Republic was not born in sin, when the
> three-fifths rule was written into the Constitution, is willful blindness.
Fortunately rbr's founding father benjamin franklin was an abolitionist
who freed all his slaves.
Bill C
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Hey Tom
Ok I see where that argument is. That's not anything I would've
connected with Ben's original comment.
That one cuts a lot of different people though. I've sort of been
following the CNN discussion boards about "Green Card Troops". The
hatred being aimed at, and about them is amazing, from all sides.
You've got the typical "We're exploiting them!!" Liberal rants, the
nutjob, scumbag, right wingers screaming "Only people who are already
citizens should be able to fight. Those wetbacks don't have any
loyalty!!" and lots of crap in between. Personally I've been in favor
of a US foreign legion for a long time. I also like those "green card"
folks in the military a whole hell of a lot, primarily because their
motivation for being there matched my own, which was, and is to give
back to, and be part of a great country which has given, and offered
me a great life. They chose to be here, recognize what a privilege it
is, and are willing to sacrifice everything to be here. Works for me.
Then you've got the folks who are happy to protest, riot, and shit on
the US, as long as it's done here in the US where that's a pretty safe
way to go, as opposed to some of the paradises they hold out as
examples like Cuba. That's why they'll go to Cuba to protest Gitmo,
with the help of the government there, but NEVER say a word about
Castro's long brutal, ongoing record while they are there. Those folks
aren't throwing us into wars though, except "Legacy Bill and Mad
Maddie" who lowered the bar for Georgie with their fiascos. You've
got to admit that most of them, except for a handful of nutjobs,
agreed with, and supported going into Afghanistan after the Taliban.
Seems to me that most of them still support that mission which we are
screwing up because of Georgie's Iraq adventure. What we were sold, on
Iraq, and what it really was are two totally different stories IMO,
that's why I don't hold anything against those folks who voted for it.
I AM pissed at the administration for their actions, and totally agree
with thwe folks who want prosecution as soon as they are out of
office.
The other side of that are the chickenhawk POS types who are all for
war, as long as they, their kids, families, and friends don't have to
go fight it. Wave the flag, curse anyone who disagrees, and hide like
hell when it comes time to actually put their asses on the line.
None of that applies to those folks who stood up in the civil rights
movement. That took, real, big brass balls, because they were, and
knew they were, risking torture, and murder, and attacks on their
families to take that stand, and they still did.
Lots of questions, and condemnations to go around, about everyone and
their actions.
Bill C
No simple answer, but if you are saying that a lower percentage of
Americans, in this generation, would fight for America, for any reason
I agree. LA and NY could get nuked and the first two responses would
be screaming, "We deserved it!!" and blockading military installations
to make it more difficult for us to respond and react. I'm still
trying to figure out how, and why disrupting, US military activities,
troop, and supply shipments during a war, such as the last couple of
days isn't material support of enemy forces. They don't even have to
pay for, or sneak saboteurs in today, we've got plenty of homegrown
folks willing to do it for them.
This was an argument Lafferty and I had way back at the beginning of
Iraq. He helped organise one of the first protests, and I helped him
with suggestions, some people to talk to etc...because that IS
American. Where that went off the rails was the location. My strong
suggestion was to hold the protest at the regional federal building
and courthouse, because they made the decision to go to war, and would
be the ones to vote to stop it. They on the other hand decided to
blockade, and disrupt the local Air Reserve Base. That's the line for
me, and was in that case too. Blocking military operations is direct
support for the enemy, and does nothing to stop the war, because those
folks, as you know, aren't making the decisions.
I know that you disagree, but there isn't anyone here including
Howard that I would say is anti-American, and the un-American folks
aren't Americans.
Tom Kunich
> You've got to admit that most of them, except for a handful of nutjobs,
> agreed with, and supported going into Afghanistan after the Taliban.
> Seems to me that most of them still support that mission which we are
> screwing up because of Georgie's Iraq adventure.
Firstly, Afghanistan is doing so much better than it was under the Taliban
that it is sort of shocking to read in print about how bad it's doing.
That's pretty much a lie.
> What we were sold, on Iraq, and what it really was are two
> totally different stories IMO, that's why I don't hold anything
> against those folks who voted for it.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
I could go on and on.
> I AM pissed at the administration for their actions, and totally agree
> with thwe folks who want prosecution as soon as they are out of
> office.
Strange, Clinton was OK.
Bill C
>
> Strange, Clinton was OK.
Nope. Not my words. He wasn't the disaster people try to portray him
as, but he wasn't anything great either. I'd rate him as average as
President. If Bush hadn't blundered just about everything he's touched
Clinton would look a lot worse.
Iraq was contained, and we could've gone the same route as Bosnia at
any time to remove suspect facilities and people. That would've left
enough troops to concentrate on Afghanistan instead of Canada having
to beg, and threaten to get another lousy thousand.
Albright and Reno on the other hand ARE what you scrape off the
bottom of your shoe after a walk in the park.
Bill C
Michael Baldwin
against Mr. James Madison as well, who wrote:
It ought be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity
that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these
States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the
barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a
considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be
totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the
unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so
great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the
unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being
redeemed from the oppression of their European brethren!
James Madison - #42, The Federalist Papers
just regards - Mike Baldwin
Kurgan Gringioni
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8c34e082-d29d-406d...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 9:25 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> > >news:8031895f-43e9-4ca9...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Many representatives of the slave states argued that
> > > > slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
> > > > and morally justifiable.
>
> > > Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
> > > representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.
>
> > Not sure where you're coming from.
>
> Maybe I'm coming from the idea that the most white Americans killed in a war
> was that war to free us from slavery. Scum sucking nobodies like trash
> talking fools here are only interested in making themselves appear to be
> nice Liberal when the truth is that they would NEVER actually take any
> actions themselves.
Dumbass -
From what I've seen, you're the type who would've been in the pro-
slavery camp.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Fred Fredburger
> In article <14ednVKG6bQDKHva...@comcast.com>,
> Fred Fredburger <FredFre...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
>
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
>>> He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.
>
>> That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
>> $50 that says Kunich will remain confused.
>
> That's not much of a bet, is it? There's not much hope of him *not* remaining
> confused.
>
Right. Kunich isn't confused because Limbaugh hates McCain, there are
other reasons for that.
Limbaugh doesn't hate McCain, either. This is the point in the campaign
where it's his job to act like a bold free thinker who questions the
Republican establishment. After the convention, he has to tow the line.
But for now, he's busy providing evidence that he's not a boot-licking
toad to anyone who's inclined to be selective in their perceptions.
Paul G.
Which proves... what? That *some* liberal Founding Fathers opposed
slavery? Of course that's true. It's also true as Ben stated that
slavery was written into the constitution. You claimed: "For the past
35 years I've been a self study of our nations framers & founders.
I've yet to "discover" a flaw in their _original_ works."
To me and others, writing slavery into the constitution was a
*GLARING* flaw in "their _original_ works", a totally repugnant
abomination. But hey, I admit it, I'm a liberal- just like Abraham
Lincoln.
-Paul
Michael Baldwin
>a *GLARING* flaw in "their _original_ works", a totally repugnant
>abomination. But hey, I admit it, I'm a liberal- just
>like Abraham Lincoln.
>-Paul
So Paul, as an abolitionist you realize your ambition to free the
slaves would have been motivated by money don't you? The vast majority
of abolitionist after all supported the _exportation_ of freed Africans.
You see Paul, there really were only three _period_ specific solutions
to ending slavery in post colonial America.
Abolish slavery and export the freeman back to a land which those born
into slavery had never even seen. Many anti-abolitionists opposed this
plan out of humanitarian concerns for the freeman. Most feared, freeman
would never "survive" the journey back to Africa.
Next, simply free the slaves. Without the necessary social skills to
assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many freeman would have
surely suffered great hardship and probable genocide. Again this option
was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons.
The final option became the reality of the situation. The Founders &
Framers knew that the very nature of our Democratic Republic would
eventually resolve the problem. But it would and did take time.
I trust that 200 years from now (or sooner) a similar debate will
take take place regarding our Nation's current state of affairs.
I'm sure there will be a side that will say we could have all done
better. I trust there will be a side that will say "They were Americans,
they thought they were doing the best they could."
I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?
Tom Kunich
news:2036-47E8...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
>
> I trust that 200 years from now (or sooner) a similar debate will
> take take place regarding our Nation's current state of affairs.
> I'm sure there will be a side that will say we could have all done
> better. I trust there will be a side that will say "They were Americans,
> they thought they were doing the best they could."
> I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?
I would word that a little differently. I don't think that people who act so
high and mighty about slavery have even the slightest inkling what the
problems were in a society where there was no cash to use and every deal was
made via trades.
On most of the plantations the majority of the worth of the plantation was
tied up in the slaves. It wasn't that slave holders wouldn't free the slaves
but that they simply couldn't without leaving themselves not just broke but
with no way to pay workers on their plantation.
It all eventually worked its way as the society advanced but it makes a lot
of those posting here look pretty ridiculous when they act as if freeing the
slaves was simply a matter of waving your hands.
By the way - indentured servants which were almost all white people from
Great Britain, had a FAR worse life with few of them living past their
indentures. After you got over your indenture there was no place to go to
earn a living. That meant actually starving to death and many resigned
indentures to remain working. This wasn't a case of the evil landholders but
a case of it being far cheaper to get another indentured servant than to pay
a free man here.
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 1:30 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <46e0d780-7106-4abd-ab40-d5db9da47...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > These'll be folk heroes and probably be working for MoveOn, or Obama
> > > by next week. His Pastor, Wright, is already being painted as a
> > > victim.
> >
> > Cite on the positive commentary by left-leaning people of stature on
> > this, please?
> > As well, how about a cite by a left-leaning person of stature painting
> > Wright as a
> > victim?
> >
> > Along those lines, why is it that Wright and Obama have been such a
> > focal point?
> > Yeah, the media say that Wright is "un-American" and has said
> > "anti-American" things. The media demands that Obama "denounce" Farrakhan when
> > Obama did not ask for his endorsement. Yet there no focus on McCain and his
> > religious backers, John Haggee or Rod Parsley and their un-American statements.
> > McCain sought out those guys for their endorsements.
> >
> > Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're
> > white, it's a different story.
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/
> Howard I expected your kneejerk. I had at least hoped you'd say
> attacking the religious service was a bad thing. You keep harping on
> me to do that with your examples, and I usually do, though sometimes
> not clearly enough for your tastes.
If you expect a "kneejerk" then why do you post things in a manner that begs for a
reaction? Read what you wrote again then tell me it was simply a case of you
portraying all left-leaning people as being nonchalant or *fully in support of*
things like some assholes who make a mess and a disturbance at a church on Easter. I
chose not to comment on that because I figured it doesn't really matter if I do or
not. It's just as asinine as the clowns in black balclavas at antiwar protests that
went out and broke windows. They didn't have the support of the rest of the people
there, yet we were all condemned for it. So my commentary on these idiots is
pointless, as it gains me nothing.
> I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
> with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
> We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
> NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.
Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on the
pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker with no real
fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up, especially government
related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey were lefties, correct? As
must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around the country or the cyanide bombers
in Texas (for a few examples).
> How about the arsons on the west coast by ELF/ALF, right wing?
Bill, there's a ton of crap going on from both sides. Church bombings (back when)
and defacings now. Gay, rae and immigrant bashing, up to and including murder. Am I
demanding you renounce or condemn that? No. It's because I can understand that every
person on the more right-leaning end of the spectrum *doesn't* approve of that stuff.
But you seem to think that the entire group of people you like to call "the Left"
*is* aware of and condones any and all acts by any and all other people who might
fall onto the same "side."
> All the protests that led to noraml people having their rights
> voiolated over the last few days, any right wing?
Ahh, there it is in print: "normal people." So all us lefty wackos aren't normal.
> The point is that the vast majority of the 'Direct Actions" are done
> by, supported by, and paid for by folks from the left. They violate
> the rights of other citizens, cost them money, time, and stress.
> You happen to agree with most of it so it's not a problem for you. I
> agree with them protesting, but not in a way that denies other people.
Bill, maybe you just can't understand it but one reason right-leaning people don't
need to go out and protest is because the government generally supports their
position with police, NSA activity, etc., right or wrong.
> As for Wright I've lived with those clowns had my kids terrorised by
> a nutjob evangelical precher in military housing. That's a whole other
> story. I have NO sympathy. He can say whatever the hell he wants, but
> he's preaching hate and inciting racist incidents. I'd equate him more
> to David Duke.
Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. I don't agree with everything Wright says
but I do understand where he came from to get the perspective he has. Once again,
though: Obama has specifically rejected things that he said, yet people in the media
(Russert the hack leading the charge) continue to make a huge deal out of this. You
say Wright's words are "hate and inciting" - don't you think that Parsley's words are
filled with "hate and inciting"? "America was founded, in part, with the intention of
seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." That guy is one of McCain's "spiritual
advisors." Right now, Islam is the new communism for the right wing: the tribe they
all love to hate and fear.
> I'd argue the double standard goes the other way on speech, at least.
> John Rocker got run out of baseball. Reggie White's still a hero.
Bill, you say that you read the article I linked. Yet you still think "the left"
gets away with saying the greatest amount of shit talk? Wow. You know, the fifth
anniversary of the invasion oof Iraq just happened and many big media outlets had a
retrospective on it where they had a bunch of people on to talk about the way it's
gone. With about two exceptions, they were people who had supported the war and
continue to support it. In other words, people who had been entirely wrong about the
war. Yet we're supposed to believe that the media is liberal and "the left" dominates
discussion?
Anyway Bill, you post a statement like, "These'll be folk heroes and probably be
working for MoveOn, or Obama by next week" and you still wonder why you get a
reaction? That statement is Kunichian in its obtuseness, I think. You conflate any
and all left-leaning people with the worst ones.
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 1:30?am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're white, it's a
> > different story.
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/
> To comment specifically on your link he makes many good points. You've
> also seen me, MANY, times call the right wing nutcases Anti-American
> scumbags and bigots. I'm still waiting on you to admit that there
> might even be the possibility of maybe there being any slightly
> extremist positions or actions taken by anyone on the left.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/denouncing-and-renouncing/index.html
> Sorry you did admit that FARC with their murdering and kidnapping
> were "Kinda Shitty". Glad you could go that far.
You know Bill, you expect me to condemn the sundry "leftist" causes that you don't
agree with but you actually approve of the rightwing leaders that the US has
inflicted on and supported in various foreign countries because "at least they are
helpful to our national interests." My lack of "proper" condemnation of leftist shit
just isn't quite at the same level as that.
Just sayin'.
Howard Kveck
Fred Fredburger <FredFre...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
Limbaugh is about hating on the "other" a whole lot, and the "other" right now is
the entirety of Islam. Giulianni was best at hating on them, so Rush liked him. But
everyone else hated Mayor Mc9-11, so all that's left is McCain. Yes, you're correct
that Rush will come around (and your reasoning is spot on). He's just going to be
quiet about it for a while.
Paul G.
> >To me and others, writing slavery into the constitution was
> >a *GLARING* flaw in "their _original_ works", a totally repugnant
> >abomination. But hey, I admit it, I'm a liberal- just
> >like Abraham Lincoln.
> >-Paul
>
> So Paul, as an abolitionist you realize your ambition to free the
> slaves would have been motivated by money don't you? The vast majority
> of abolitionist after all supported the _exportation_ of freed Africans.
What part of "I'm a liberal- just like Abraham Lincoln" is it that
you don't understand? Hell, I'd pry those slaves from the cold, dead
fingers of their conservative masters- just like Lincoln did.
> Next, simply free the slaves. Without the necessary social skills to
> assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many freeman would have
> surely suffered great hardship and probable genocide. Again this option
> was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons.
Ah- I never looked at it that way- they kept them enslaved for
humanitarian reasons. This is very educational for someone like me
who's never been exposed to this type of thinking.
> I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?
Oh, I *know* you can do better; just read what you wrote. As for
myself- I'm feeling morally superior just about now. Why mess with
success?
-Paul
Paul G.
> On most of the plantations the majority of the worth of the plantation was
> tied up in the slaves. It wasn't that slave holders wouldn't free the slaves
> but that they simply couldn't without leaving themselves not just broke but
> with no way to pay workers on their plantation.
>
> It all eventually worked its way as the society advanced but it makes a lot
> of those posting here look pretty ridiculous when they act as if freeing the
> slaves was simply a matter of waving your hands.
Yeah, as I recall the slaves were pried from the cold, dead hands of
the slave owners. But it was more like squeezing a trigger than waving
hands. But thanks for the lesson on the economics of slavery and the
motivations of the slave owners. I have to agree that some posting
here "look pretty ridiculous".
-Paul
Bill C
> If you expect a "kneejerk" then why do you post things in a manner that begs for a
> reaction? Read what you wrote again then tell me it was simply a case of you
> portraying all left-leaning people as being nonchalant or *fully in support of*
> things like some assholes who make a mess and a disturbance at a church on Easter. I
> chose not to comment on that because I figured it doesn't really matter if I do or
> not. It's just as asinine as the clowns in black balclavas at antiwar protests that
> went out and broke windows. They didn't have the support of the rest of the people
> there, yet we were all condemned for it. So my commentary on these idiots is
> pointless, as it gains me nothing.
>
at events arranged by, and funded by mainstream left big donors and
names, Ted Turner for one.
> > I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
> > with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
> > We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
> > NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.
>
> Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on the
> pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker with no real
> fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up, especially government
> related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey were lefties, correct? As
> must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around the country or the cyanide bombers
> in Texas (for a few examples).
>
That's exactly why I phrased it the way I did. We don't know who did
it. The likelyhood though is that it was someone opposed to military
recruiting.
> > How about the arsons on the west coast by ELF/ALF, right wing?
>
> Bill, there's a ton of crap going on from both sides. Church bombings (back when)
> and defacings now. Gay, rae and immigrant bashing, up to and including murder. Am I
> demanding you renounce or condemn that? No. It's because I can understand that every
> person on the more right-leaning end of the spectrum *doesn't* approve of that stuff.
> But you seem to think that the entire group of people you like to call "the Left"
> *is* aware of and condones any and all acts by any and all other people who might
> fall onto the same "side."
>
No I think the vast majority of folks on the left DON'T approve of
this type of shit, just a lot of those leading the way for them, and
providing the funding. "Direct Action" seems to be an article of
faith, or rite of passage.
My read on who's committing this shit is, if you take out the stuff
like the WTO riots, that generally individual right wing nutcases
commit many less, but more personally violent stuff. I'd say the
incidents run 9 of 10 from the left, with most being property crimes,
denial of access, and intimidation.
The anti-abortion nutcases are real good at all those, but way less
active.
> > All the protests that led to noraml people having their rights
> > voiolated over the last few days, any right wing?
>
> Ahh, there it is in print: "normal people." So all us lefty wackos aren't normal.\
No, people of whatever flavor trying to go about their daily business
are normal. Those breaking the law aren't. Those folks who protest
within the law are normal too.
>
> > The point is that the vast majority of the 'Direct Actions" are done
> > by, supported by, and paid for by folks from the left. They violate
> > the rights of other citizens, cost them money, time, and stress.
> > You happen to agree with most of it so it's not a problem for you. I
> > agree with them protesting, but not in a way that denies other people.
>
> Bill, maybe you just can't understand it but one reason right-leaning people don't
> need to go out and protest is because the government generally supports their
> position with police, NSA activity, etc., right or wrong.
>
Greg and I disagree massively with this. I'd say the US is a lot more
socialist, especially after FDR than anyone had envisioned. Even if
that was so, that's no justification to violate others. How about some
respect, both for law, and other people?
> > As for Wright I've lived with those clowns had my kids terrorised by
> > a nutjob evangelical precher in military housing. That's a whole other
> > story. I have NO sympathy. He can say whatever the hell he wants, but
> > he's preaching hate and inciting racist incidents. I'd equate him more
> > to David Duke.
>
> Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. I don't agree with everything Wright says
> but I do understand where he came from to get the perspective he has. Once again,
> though: Obama has specifically rejected things that he said, yet people in the media
> (Russert the hack leading the charge) continue to make a huge deal out of this. You
> say Wright's words are "hate and inciting" - don't you think that Parsley's words are
> filled with "hate and inciting"? "America was founded, in part, with the intention of
> seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." That guy is one of McCain's "spiritual
> advisors." Right now, Islam is the new communism for the right wing: the tribe they
> all love to hate and fear.
>
Yes generalizing that way is wrong. The specifics are another story.
Out of the last 10 terrorist attacks against US targets how many were
done in the name of Islam? Is the internal crap, and threat WAY
overblown? Hell yeah! I've only said it a million times. Historically
and practically it sure as hell is. That said so is the hysteria over
what is basically an insignificant number of combat deaths and
casualties from a historical perspective. ANY sucks, ANY when we
shouldn't have been there are too many, but look up Anteitam. Both are
indicative of America haven't become a hyper-sensitive, neurotic, fear
filled, soft nation.
> > I'd argue the double standard goes the other way on speech, at least.
> > John Rocker got run out of baseball. Reggie White's still a hero.
>
> Bill, you say that you read the article I linked. Yet you still think "the left"
> gets away with saying the greatest amount of shit talk? Wow. You know, the fifth
> anniversary of the invasion oof Iraq just happened and many big media outlets had a
> retrospective on it where they had a bunch of people on to talk about the way it's
> gone. With about two exceptions, they were people who had supported the war and
> continue to support it. In other words, people who had been entirely wrong about the
> war. Yet we're supposed to believe that the media is liberal and "the left" dominates
> discussion?
>
You and I saw different coverage I guess. There was a lot of talk
about the improved situation, as part of the current assessment.
That's currently what is happening, but the massive overall majority
of stuff I saw was still "The Iraq war is wrong!" folks. You know what
I see. I'd put the overall balance 65-35 anti-war philosophically, and
locally it ran 98% anti war.
> Anyway Bill, you post a statement like, "These'll be folk heroes and probably be
> working for MoveOn, or Obama by next week" and you still wonder why you get a
> reaction? That statement is Kunichian in its obtuseness, I think. You conflate any
> and all left-leaning people with the worst ones.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
NO, I expected your reaction, after I wrote it. You aren't the
average person from the left, any more than Greg is an average
libertarian.The fifth anniversary here in happy valley has been used
to bash America, the military, the people in uniform, and anyone to
the right of Jane Fonda. I'd planned to stay out of this thread, even
after the shit my wife took trying to go to work from the protesters
who got arrested here, until the Church incident. Once again all the
local stuff was in support of the brave protesters standing up to the
fascist man. It may well be, and I've said this a million times, that
the local climate colors how I see things.
Bill C
Bill C
> You know Bill, you expect me to condemn the sundry "leftist" causes that you don't
> agree with but you actually approve of the rightwing leaders that the US has
> inflicted on and supported in various foreign countries because "at least they are
> helpful to our national interests." My lack of "proper" condemnation of leftist shit
> just isn't quite at the same level as that.
>
> Just sayin'.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
No Howard NOT APPROVE, not my words. Live with, prefer to the option,
try to use, yes. I'd rather have Marcos in power than Abu-Sayyaf when
those are the only realistic options. In fantasy land we'd both love
to see carbon copies of, say, the Swiss or Canadian govt. running
things.
I DO NOT give their behavior a free pass due to their ideology. You
seem to.
The reality is you follow "The Reagan Rule". Don't speak ill of
anyone close to your philosophy, no matter what. I hated it from him,
and his friends now, and the same for folks on the other side.
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:1ddd0eb2-0d66-4ff0...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yeah, as I recall the slaves were pried from the cold, dead hands of
> the slave owners. But it was more like squeezing a trigger than waving
> hands. But thanks for the lesson on the economics of slavery and the
> motivations of the slave owners. I have to agree that some posting
> here "look pretty ridiculous".
Thanks for demonstrating precisely what I was talking about. Morons such as
yourself who talk 21st century ethics believe that they're superior to
everyone else that lived before.
Tom Kunich
>
> What part of "I'm a liberal- just like Abraham Lincoln" is it that
> you don't understand? Hell, I'd pry those slaves from the cold, dead
> fingers of their conservative masters- just like Lincoln did.
What part of "Lincoln was a Republican" don't you understand? Too bad that
if you'd bothered to actually learn something about the civil war you'd know
that Lincoln knew that slavery would die of its own accord and so had no
intention of freeing the slaves until AFTER the Civil War started.
> Ah- I never looked at it that way- they kept them enslaved for
> humanitarian reasons. This is very educational for someone like me
> who's never been exposed to this type of thinking.
Let me guess - you've never bothered to actually read anything about
history?
Michael Baldwin
>Oh, I *know* you can do better; just read what
>you wrote. As for myself- I'm feeling morally superior
>just about now. Why mess with success?
another defender of the Framers & Founders.
They [the Declarations signers] meant simply to declare the right,
[equality] so enforcement of it may follow as fast as circumstances
should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society,
which would be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked
to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly obtained,
constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening
its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all
people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are
created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from
Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but
for future use. Its authors meant it to be as,- thank God -, it is now
proving itself - a stumbling block to all those who in after times might
seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.
Abraham Lincoln
Paul, it goes without saying, I'm a simple man. My only agenda in
life is to make my families life better than mine has been to date or
ever will be. I know my openness and honesty is easily mocked in modern
society.
You however, through parsed words and innuendo have insulted my
character by suggesting that I'm a racist, all the while yourself
claiming to be "morally superior". I will pre-concede the final words
on this discussion to you. Choose those words wisely, or they may echo
hollow forever, for all the world to see.
Mike Baldwin
Paul G.
> "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote in message
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm a walking encyclopedia. By definition, the
people who advocated radical changes to the status quo were liberals-
Jesus, George Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, etc.
They were fought every step of the way by conservatives, who *by
definition* opposed change, respectively the Pharisees, Tories,
Confederates, and racists. Lincoln was indeed a Republican, but he was
also a liberal- or did you think the Confederate slave-owners were
liberals? The fact is, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, but became a
Republican because the Republicans became the party of racism. Lincoln
is spinning in his grave over what his party has become.
I'm deliberately making you think, but you're too stupid to figure it
out and you fell right into my trap. I'd rather educate you, but what
the hell, my next choice is having a little fun with you.
-Paul
Paul G.
> >I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?
> >Oh, I *know* you can do better; just read what
> >you wrote. As for myself- I'm feeling morally superior
> >just about now. Why mess with success?
>
> Insult duly noted Paul. Please allow me to share with you the words of
> another defender of the Framers & Founders.
>
> They [the Declarations signers] meant simply to declare the right,
> [equality] so enforcement of it may follow as fast as circumstances
> should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society,
> which would be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked
> to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly obtained,
> constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening
> its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all
> people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are
> created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from
> Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but
> for future use. Its authors meant it to be as,- thank God -, it is now
> proving itself - a stumbling block to all those who in after times might
> seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.
>
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> Paul, it goes without saying, I'm a simple man.
I think that's spelled "simpleton".
My only agenda in
> life is to make my families life better than mine has been to date or
> ever will be. I know my openness and honesty is easily mocked in modern
> society.
I'd kind of like life to be better for everyone, not just my family.
I'll bet you're a Bush voter. How'd that work out for you?
> You however, through parsed words and innuendo have insulted my
> character by suggesting that I'm a racist, all the while yourself
> claiming to be "morally superior".
You said: "Next, simply free the slaves... Again this option was
not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons."
You clearly said the slave owners kept their slaves "for humanitarian
reasons". It doesn't get much more racist than that.
Jesus was the original liberal. People just like you tortured him to
death. Think about that.
-Paul
Howard Kveck
wrote:
> "Paul G." <car...@egine.com> wrote in message
> news:45e6aa96-434d-4c0f...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > What part of "I'm a liberal- just like Abraham Lincoln" is it that
> > you don't understand? Hell, I'd pry those slaves from the cold, dead
> > fingers of their conservative masters- just like Lincoln did.
>
> What part of "Lincoln was a Republican" don't you understand?
You really think the Republicans of Lincoln's time are even remotely similar to
the GOP of today? If you do, you're even further out to lunch than you've let on (and
you've let on that you're pretty far out to lunch).
> Too bad that if you'd bothered to actually learn something about the civil war
> you'd know that Lincoln knew that slavery would die of its own accord and so had
> no intention of freeing the slaves until AFTER the Civil War started.
>
> > Ah- I never looked at it that way- they kept them enslaved for
> > humanitarian reasons. This is very educational for someone like me
> > who's never been exposed to this type of thinking.
>
> Let me guess - you've never bothered to actually read anything about
> history?
Let me guess - you're just making this up as you go along.
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:20?am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > You know Bill, you expect me to condemn the sundry "leftist" causes that
> > you don't agree with but you actually approve of the rightwing leaders that the US
> > has inflicted on and supported in various foreign countries because "at least
> > they are helpful to our national interests." My lack of "proper" condemnation of
> > leftist shit just isn't quite at the same level as that.
> >
> > Just sayin'.
> No Howard NOT APPROVE, not my words. Live with, prefer to the option,
> try to use, yes. I'd rather have Marcos in power than Abu-Sayyaf when
> those are the only realistic options. In fantasy land we'd both love
> to see carbon copies of, say, the Swiss or Canadian govt. running
> things.
I read this as seeming to be pretty much in support:
"I think that there are a few times when National interest overrides the human
rights records of people we work with, when the change would be a disaster to US
interests, not when the people with the horrible records who get a free pass also
hate the US."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2700471f93d30185
> I DO NOT give their behavior a free pass due to their ideology. You
> seem to.
> The reality is you follow "The Reagan Rule". Don't speak ill of
> anyone close to your philosophy, no matter what. I hated it from him,
> and his friends now, and the same for folks on the other side.
Actually, I don't do that at all. There is a reason (or two) I haven't leapt to
condemn as you want me to. Many of the things you've tossed at me, demanding to know
why I don't condemn them, seem to be litmus tests for things you don't approve of and
a series of attempts to make equivilences (hypothetical example: Me: "Abu Ghraib is
some fucked up shit." You: "But what about FARC?!?!?!?"). It seems like your approval
of me is based on these litmus tests - I don't respond favorably to that kind of
situation. The other thing is that when someone keeps pressing me to behave in a
certain way in situations like this, I tend to be even more reluctant to do that. I'm
funny that way (and probably many other ways).
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:20 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > If you expect a "kneejerk" then why do you post things in a manner that
> > begs for a reaction? Read what you wrote again then tell me it was simply a
> > case of you portraying all left-leaning people as being nonchalant or *fully in
> > support of* things like some assholes who make a mess and a disturbance at a
> > church on Easter. I chose not to comment on that because I figured it doesn't
> > really matter if I do or not. It's just as asinine as the clowns in black
> > balclavas at antiwar protests that went out and broke windows. They didn't have
> > the support of the rest of the people there, yet we were all condemned for it.
> > So my commentary on these idiots is pointless, as it gains me nothing.
> >
> The point is that those many of theose "clowns" have been "trained"
> at events arranged by, and funded by mainstream left big donors and
> names, Ted Turner for one.
Really? What I saw was a small bunch of people who aren't remotely likely to be
interested in getting anything from mainstream anyone, left or not, because they
believe *those* people are "sellouts." Did you get that from Brent Bozell or David
Horowitz? See, that goes a long way toward confirming that you believe that "the
left" are all in cahoots.
This is part of a longstanding pattern and here's how it works. A thread is going
and you come along and post some comment about an unrelated thing, like an Easter
service that got disrupted by antiwar protesters. Okay, that (the disruption) sucks,
but wait! You have to follow it up with comments about how the disrupters are going
to be hailed as heroes and will be working for MoveOn or Obama in a few days.
Riiiight. Your logic goes like this: "Antiwar protesters are lefties. MoveOn and
Obama are also lefties. Therefore, MoveOn and Obama *fully approve* of the antiwar
protesters who disrupted the Easer service." You are completely unable to
differentiate between anyone you perceive to be on the left. Another good example is
when you tried to assert that MoveOn knows who the ALF and ELF arsonists are.
Anyway, this thing that you do is all part of the treadmill that you seem to love.
> > > We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
> > > NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.
> >
> > Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on
> > the pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker
> > with no real fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up,
> > especially government related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey
> > were lefties, correct? As must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around
> > the country or the cyanide bombers in Texas (for a few examples).
>
> That's exactly why I phrased it the way I did. We don't know who did
> it. The likelyhood though is that it was someone opposed to military
> recruiting.
Based on the pattern, I'd say it isn't. Based on your pattern of
conclusion-jumping, OKC was done by lefties. And by the way, you're actually
elevating that thing in NYC with something al Qaeda would do? Wow.
> > Bill, there's a ton of crap going on from both sides. Church bombings
> > (back when) and defacings now. Gay, rae and immigrant bashing, up to and
> > including murder. Am I demanding you renounce or condemn that? No. It's
> > because I can understand that every person on the more right-leaning end of
> > the spectrum *doesn't* approve of that stuff. But you seem to think that the
> > entire group of people you like to call "the Left" *is* aware of and condones
> > any and all acts by any and all other people who might fall onto the same "side."
>
> No I think the vast majority of folks on the left DON'T approve of
> this type of shit, just a lot of those leading the way for them, and
> providing the funding. "Direct Action" seems to be an article of
> faith, or rite of passage.
You may think that, but you're wrong.
> > > The point is that the vast majority of the 'Direct Actions" are done
> > > by, supported by, and paid for by folks from the left. They violate
> > > the rights of other citizens, cost them money, time, and stress.
> > > You happen to agree with most of it so it's not a problem for you. I
> > > agree with them protesting, but not in a way that denies other people.
> >
> > Bill, maybe you just can't understand it but one reason right-leaning
> > people don't need to go out and protest is because the government generally
> > supports their position with police, NSA activity, etc., right or wrong.
> >
> Greg and I disagree massively with this. I'd say the US is a lot more
> socialist, especially after FDR than anyone had envisioned. Even if
> that was so, that's no justification to violate others. How about some
> respect, both for law, and other people?
I'm not talking about society in terms of things like Social Security or labor
laws, Bill. I'm talking about things like government at all levels doing things that
right-leaning people are in agreement with. Things like going to war, for instance.
Anti-immigrant shit.
> > > As for Wright I've lived with those clowns had my kids terrorised by
> > > a nutjob evangelical precher in military housing. That's a whole other
> > > story. I have NO sympathy. He can say whatever the hell he wants, but
> > > he's preaching hate and inciting racist incidents. I'd equate him more
> > > to David Duke.
> >
> > Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. I don't agree with everything
> > Wright says but I do understand where he came from to get the perspective he
> > has. Once again, though: Obama has specifically rejected things that he said,
> > yet people in the media (Russert the hack leading the charge) continue to make
> > a huge deal out of this. You say Wright's words are "hate and inciting" - don't
> > you think that Parsley's words are filled with "hate and inciting"? "America
> > was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam]
> > destroyed." That guy is one of McCain's "spiritual advisors." Right now, Islam
> > is the new communism for the right wing: the tribe they all love to hate and fear.
> >
> Yes generalizing that way is wrong. The specifics are another story.
> Out of the last 10 terrorist attacks against US targets how many were
> done in the name of Islam? Is the internal crap, and threat WAY
> overblown? Hell yeah! I've only said it a million times. Historically
> and practically it sure as hell is.
Obviously the elements of *radical* islamism are a problem. But people like
Parsley and Limbaugh are doing what you do with "the left" and conflating all of
Islam with those very worst elements. Why this is problematic is that guys like
Parsley aren't being shunned - they're invited in to be part of the process on the
GOP side. Wright isn't. Haggee and Falwell are invited to the White House to be part
of the discussion on foreign policy. [1]
> > Bill, you say that you read the article I linked. Yet you still think "the
> > left" gets away with saying the greatest amount of shit talk? Wow. You know, the
> > fifth anniversary of the invasion oof Iraq just happened and many big media
> > outlets had a retrospective on it where they had a bunch of people on to talk
> > about the way it's gone. With about two exceptions, they were people who had
> > supported the war and continue to support it. In other words, people who had
> > been entirely wrong about the war. Yet we're supposed to believe that the media
> > is liberal and "the left" dominates discussion?
> >
> You and I saw different coverage I guess. There was a lot of talk
> about the improved situation, as part of the current assessment.
> That's currently what is happening, but the massive overall majority
> of stuff I saw was still "The Iraq war is wrong!" folks. You know what
> I see. I'd put the overall balance 65-35 anti-war philosophically, and
> locally it ran 98% anti war.
Holy shit! You *did* see different coverage. I saw a series of articles in the NYT
[2] and in Slate [3] by people who were wrong about the war. Most of the rest of it
was about how grand the Surge has been (when it has, in fact, been a failure because
it has not achieved the political progress that was the reason for sending the extra
troops in). Not one person who was in opposition to the war got to talk. I know that
you only remember the opposition to the war as being related to "any war is bad" and
that we had no specifics for why. That is a bad case of historical revisionism, Bill.
There were any number of
[1]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16intro.html
[3] http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/
As for your comment about the double standard on hate-speech being tipped in favor
of "the left", that's ridiculous: Michael Savage still has a job, Ann Coulter and
Michelle Malkin still get regular bookings on TV. There is no one on the left that
can even begin to get to the level of those people and get anything remotely like the
air time they do.
Bill C
>
>
> > You and I saw different coverage I guess. There was a lot of talk
> > about the improved situation, as part of the current assessment.
> > That's currently what is happening, but the massive overall majority
> > of stuff I saw was still "The Iraq war is wrong!" folks. You know what
> > I see. I'd put the overall balance 65-35 anti-war philosophically, and
> > locally it ran 98% anti war.
>
> Holy shit! You *did* see different coverage. I saw a series of articles in the NYT
> [2] and in Slate [3] by people who were wrong about the war. Most of the rest of it
> was about how grand the Surge has been (when it has, in fact, been a failure because
> it has not achieved the political progress that was the reason for sending the extra
> troops in). Not one person who was in opposition to the war got to talk. I know that
> you only remember the opposition to the war as being related to "any war is bad" and
> that we had no specifics for why. That is a bad case of historical revisionism, Bill.
> There were any number of
>
>
> [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16intro.html
>
> [3]http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/
>
> As for your comment about the double standard on hate-speech being tipped in favor
> of "the left", that's ridiculous: Michael Savage still has a job, Ann Coulter and
> Michelle Malkin still get regular bookings on TV. There is no one on the left that
> can even begin to get to the level of those people and get anything remotely like the
> air time they do.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Once again we see a different picture though I do agree with some of
your comments.
The commenators from the right have more, and bigger air time because
they sell product. It's a capitalist country, in spite of your wishes,
and that's how it works. They make money for the people putting them
on the air, so they get time. Maddow, and her friends are just as
vicious and miserable, but don't sell shit, IMO because they are about
telling the majority of America hoiw much they all suck, and what a
bunch of bigotted, fascist shit, corporate slaves they are. Not going
to do much for your bottom line or popularity.
People don't want to be treated like shit, and told they are shit.
You don't like it from the right wing nutjobs, most of America has
voted that they don't like it, with their wallets, from Air America.
There was NO thread hijack. TK started a thread on liberal fascism,
everyone jumped into bashing him. I only jumped in after an incident
of "liberals" attacking folks, showing NO respect, and violating their
right to freely practice their religion. They should've insisted on
assault charges for the paint that was thrown on them, at a minimum.
Explain to me why I have SO little problem with so many other anti-
war folks? Because they aren't locked into the Reagan Rule, and aren't
willing to excuse/justify almost anything done by the left. Believe it
or not a lot of my friends here are activist types, ex-hippies,
etc...the difference being there is give and take in discussions with
them, not stonewalling and blanket defense.
Lafferty is a perfect example of that, that you folks know. He's out
to lunch on doping, and I've told him so. He's just as vigorously gone
after my position. We have done that on just about every subject out
there.
I admit, as you do, to being WAY more stubborn and offensive with you
becuase you take the sanctity position for the left. You critically
evaluate the left the way Malkin and Coulter evaluate the right. Most
of the folks, left, or right don't do that.
Youy keep trying to paint me as a right wing nutjob, maybe you really
do think that. I keep painting you as a working for, and protecting
the far left, because I do think that. I DON'T think you support a lot
of the stuff, but do think you feel you have to defend all of it.
That's the problem.
The vast majority of folks from center left to center right are
pretty damned much the same, and don't like the shit being done by the
folks out at the ends. You defend the folks on the left end, pretty
much no matter what.
Your comments on the "surge" are exactly where the folks who aren't
military, or are anti-military get it wrong. This is why the vet's
from Vietnam got abused when they came home, and I'm NOT saying you
are anti-military I know better.
The "surge" has done exactly what it was supposed to do, or better.
It lowered the level of violence, and the political heat, to allow the
politicians a chance to deal with the political situation. The
military provided EXACTLY what it was supposed to. The fact that the
politicians have failed abjectly, again doesn't mean that the "surge"
hasn't worked. The politics are a seperate animal, and as I've said
before I'm not sure that the violence is down due to the "surge".
There're a bunch of other factors.
Bill C
Bill C
"If the Revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments
whenever necessary, it will stop still less from laying its hand on
any tendency in art which, no matter how great its achievement in
form, threatens to disintegrate the revolutionary environment or to
arouse the internal forces of the Revolution, that is, the
proletariat, the peasantry and the intelligentsia, to a hostile
opposition to one another. Our standard is, clearly, political,
imperative and intolerant."
Leon Trotsky quote
"In a serious struggle there is no worse cruelty than to be
magnanimous at an inopportune time."
Leon Trotsky quote
"The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx attached to this
concept, means a revolution which makes no compromise with any single
form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, which
goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from
without; that is, a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted
in the preceding one and which can end only in complete liquidation."
Leon Trotsky quote
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which
particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent
and repress them."
Karl Marx quote
"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to
socialism."
Karl Marx quote
Bill C
Bill C
>
> > I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
> > with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
> > We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
> > NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.
>
> Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on the
> pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker with no real
> fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up, especially government
> related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey were lefties, correct? As
> must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around the country or the cyanide bombers
> in Texas (for a few examples).
>
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html
Report Cites Increase in Attacks on Military Recruiting Centers
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Shattered windows and bomb scares are growing threats for recruiters
working to find young men and women to join the U.S. military,
according to a new report that claims attacks on military recruiting
stations are on the rise.
The report, issued by a not-for-profit group that supports members of
the military, calls the incidents -- including the spray-painting of
graffiti -- "attacks," and claims there have been more than 50 since
March 2003.
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Report
The 50 is overblown, but it's pretty clear that this is fairly common,
and many are fairly serious. Of course you will just dismiss it all
because you don't like the messenger.
You made the argument earlier that "Direct Actions" were
understandable, and justified when the people are disenfranchised, and
not represented by the State.
I can't think of a single situation where I would condone violence,
illegal actions, and violating others here in the US today. Everyone
has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups.
Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to be
murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.
Bill C
Fred Fredburger
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm a walking encyclopedia. By definition, the
> people who advocated radical changes to the status quo were liberals-
> Jesus, George Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, etc.
>
> They were fought every step of the way by conservatives, who *by
> definition* opposed change, respectively the Pharisees, Tories,
> Confederates, and racists.
Your problem is that you have read a dictionary and become confused.
It's simple, really. Evil people are liberals. Good people are
conservatives.
But I bet you've already figured this out.
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:31 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 2:36 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > Whatever happened to
> > > Leon Trotsky?
> > > He got an icepick
> > > That made his ears burn.
> "If the Revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
After you told me I was a Stalinist Maoist FARCer, I happened to hear a song by
the Stranglers called "No More Heroes" - that's where the lines are from, and why it
appealed to me at the time I attached it as a sig file. Did you actually think I was
favorably commenting on Trotsky?
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2:36 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > You and I saw different coverage I guess. There was a lot of talk
> > > about the improved situation, as part of the current assessment.
> > > That's currently what is happening, but the massive overall majority
> > > of stuff I saw was still "The Iraq war is wrong!" folks. You know what
> > > I see. I'd put the overall balance 65-35 anti-war philosophically, and
> > > locally it ran 98% anti war.
> >
> > Holy shit! You *did* see different coverage. I saw a series of articles
> > in the NYT [2] and in Slate [3] by people who were wrong about the war. Most
> > of the rest of it was about how grand the Surge has been (when it has, in fact,
> > been a failure because it has not achieved the political progress that was the
> > reason for sending the extra troops in). Not one person who was in opposition
> > to the war got to talk. I know that you only remember the opposition to the war
> > as being related to "any war is bad" and that we had no specifics for why. That
> > is a bad case of historical revisionism, Bill.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committ...
> >
> > [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16intro.html
> >
> > [3]http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/
> >
> > As for your comment about the double standard on hate-speech being
> > tipped in favor of "the left", that's ridiculous: Michael Savage still has a
> > job, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin still get regular bookings on TV. There
> > is no one on the left that can even begin to get to the level of those people
> > and get anything remotely like the air time they do.
> Once again we see a different picture though I do agree with some of
> your comments.
> The commenators from the right have more, and bigger air time because
> they sell product.
Glen Beck (who still has a show) is the lowest rated person in his time zones in
all demographics. Tucker Carlson was in a similar situation for several years
(although he has lost his show, the network has things lined up for him to continue
to be on air in "other capacities"). Two examples off the top of my head.
> It's a capitalist country, in spite of your wishes,
Right, I'm the Stalinist. Thanks for the reminder, I almost forgot.
> and that's how it works. They make money for the people putting them
> on the air, so they get time. Maddow, and her friends are just as
> vicious and miserable, but don't sell shit, IMO because they are about
> telling the majority of America hoiw much they all suck, and what a
> bunch of bigotted, fascist shit, corporate slaves they are.
That's what you hear from her? I sure don't.
> There was NO thread hijack. TK started a thread on liberal fascism,
> everyone jumped into bashing him.
Yeah, because he was wrong, you know? His definition of facism is wrong (and it
appears you agree with it).
> I only jumped in after an incident
> of "liberals" attacking folks, showing NO respect, and violating their
> right to freely practice their religion. They should've insisted on
> assault charges for the paint that was thrown on them, at a minimum.
Bill, When I read you post that some assholes disrupted an Easter service, I'm
inclined to agree, but I know that, just as predictably as rain on a summer afternoon
in Florida, you'll make an additional comment like the ones about "heroes", MoveOn
and Obama. You can't help yourself.
> Explain to me why I have SO little problem with so many other anti-
> war folks? Because they aren't locked into the Reagan Rule, and aren't
> willing to excuse/justify almost anything done by the left. Believe it
> or not a lot of my friends here are activist types, ex-hippies,
> etc...the difference being there is give and take in discussions with
> them, not stonewalling and blanket defense.
Because I've seen the pattern a metric buttload of times, Bill, and I start to get
weary of it. Grotesque generalizations and smears like the one that got this ball
rolling.
> I admit, as you do, to being WAY more stubborn and offensive with you
> becuase you take the sanctity position for the left. You critically
> evaluate the left the way Malkin and Coulter evaluate the right. Most
> of the folks, left, or right don't do that.
You're saying I'm as bad as Malkin and Coulter? I find that to be absurd.
> Youy keep trying to paint me as a right wing nutjob, maybe you really
> do think that. I keep painting you as a working for, and protecting
> the far left, because I do think that. I DON'T think you support a lot
> of the stuff, but do think you feel you have to defend all of it.
> That's the problem.
I've explained it before: you have certain pet things that get you wound up. i
don't happen to agree that they're as awful as you think, in many cases, but mainly I
happen to be interested in other things going on in the world. Sometimes that's
stuff that I might actually have some influence over, like things our govt. gets up
to and I might be able to demonstrate to a congress member that they should oppose
that activity, for example. I've explained it plenty of times before: my lack of
continual condemnation of the things you don't like does not constitute support or a
defense of it.
> Your comments on the "surge" are exactly where the folks who aren't
> military, or are anti-military get it wrong. This is why the vet's
> from Vietnam got abused when they came home, and I'm NOT saying you
> are anti-military I know better.
> The "surge" has done exactly what it was supposed to do, or better.
> It lowered the level of violence, and the political heat, to allow the
> politicians a chance to deal with the political situation. The
> military provided EXACTLY what it was supposed to. The fact that the
> politicians have failed abjectly, again doesn't mean that the "surge"
> hasn't worked.
The main goal, according to Petraeus, was to give the politicians time to work out
some details so they could achieve stability in the country. They have failed
miserably on that point. I'd say that you read my comments as suggesting that the
soldiers didn't do a good enough job - that is not what I said or suggested. As for
the reduction in violence, I think the insurgents took a breather to see exactly what
the tactics were going to be and they would respond to them in time. Which,
apparently, is now.
The politics are a seperate animal, and as I've said
> before I'm not sure that the violence is down due to the "surge".
> There're a bunch of other factors.
> Bill C
--
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:20 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
> > > with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
> > > We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
> > > NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.
> >
> > Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on
> > the pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker
> > with no real fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up,
> > especially government related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey
> > were lefties, correct? As must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around
> > the country or the cyanide bombers in Texas (for a few examples).
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html
>
> Report Cites Increase in Attacks on Military Recruiting Centers
> Wednesday, March 26, 2008
>
> Shattered windows and bomb scares are growing threats for recruiters
> working to find young men and women to join the U.S. military,
> according to a new report that claims attacks on military recruiting
> stations are on the rise.
>
> The report, issued by a not-for-profit group that supports members of
> the military, calls the incidents -- including the spray-painting of
> graffiti -- "attacks," and claims there have been more than 50 since
> March 2003.
>
> http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Report
>
> The 50 is overblown, but it's pretty clear that this is fairly common,
> and many are fairly serious. Of course you will just dismiss it all
> because you don't like the messenger.
> You made the argument earlier that "Direct Actions" were
> understandable, and justified when the people are disenfranchised, and
> not represented by the State.
> I can't think of a single situation where I would condone violence,
> illegal actions, and violating others here in the US today. Everyone
> has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups.
Who says that I agree with and support what those people are doing? Secondly, if
everyone has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups, why are
we in Iraq? there were marches of hundreds of thousands of people and Bush said that
he doesn't make decisions based on public opinion. Cheney re-asserted that in the
last week. I find it funny to think back to those marches - a couple of times there
were counter-protests. At one, there were 86 reporters to cover 45 people
demonstrating in favor of the war. That got bigger coverage in several major news
outlets than the antiwar march. So I don't buy that argument.
> Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to be
> murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
> State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
> try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
> I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.
People who consider abortionto be murder are marginalized? Hmm, I guess visits to
the White House and promises of Supreme Court members who'll overturn Roe v. Wade is
as marginalized as one can get.
Donald Munro
> After you told me I was a Stalinist Maoist FARCer, I happened to hear a
Gordon Brown, texture like sun.
Donald Munro
> Your problem is that you have read a dictionary and become confused.
>
> It's simple, really. Evil people are liberals. Good people are
> conservatives.
Don't you mean evil people are gay, liberal, impotent nazis.
Bill C
>
> Who says that I agree with and support what those people are doing? Secondly, if
> everyone has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups, why are
> we in Iraq? there were marches of hundreds of thousands of people and Bush said that
> he doesn't make decisions based on public opinion. Cheney re-asserted that in the
> last week. I find it funny to think back to those marches - a couple of times there
> were counter-protests. At one, there were 86 reporters to cover 45 people
> demonstrating in favor of the war. That got bigger coverage in several major news
> outlets than the antiwar march. So I don't buy that argument.
>
It's a democaracy,everyone gets to be heard, and the anti-war folks
were heard. Democracy doesn't mean that everyone gets what they want.
Bush even got a second term, and the approval in the beginning of Iraq
was sky high.
> > Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to
be
> > murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
> > State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
> > try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
> > I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.
>
> People who consider abortionto be murder are marginalized? Hmm, I guess visits to
> the White House and promises of Supreme Court members who'll overturn Roe v. Wade is
> as marginalized as one can get.
Here we go again. How clearly do I have to state a specific condition
to get you to reply to the damned question? You avoid like a dodgeball
PHD. I specifically made the case for here in Mass., or I could've
made the case for Gay Rights in Kansas. That you would've answered.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill C
Bill C
>
> That's what you hear from her? I sure don't.
>
Including when she was here in the Valley before going national.
Everyone who isn't for open borders, abortion on demand, a gay rights
constitutional protection, etc... is a vicious, bigotted troglidyte. I
listened to her show almost every morning because my partner was a
fan, and she played really great, eclectic music. She was the same in
person at events here to like "First Night" which she hosted.
> > There was NO thread hijack. TK started a thread on liberal fascism,
> > everyone jumped into bashing him.
>
> Yeah, because he was wrong, you know? His definition of facism is wrong (and it
> appears you agree with it).
>
Never said a word on whether he was right or wrong, just that there
was s group bashing in progress. granted he brings a LOT of that on
himself.
> > I only jumped in after an incident
> > of "liberals" attacking folks, showing NO respect, and violating their
> > right to freely practice their religion. They should've insisted on
> > assault charges for the paint that was thrown on them, at a minimum.
>
> Bill, When I read you post that some assholes disrupted an Easter service, I'm
> inclined to agree, but I know that, just as predictably as rain on a summer afternoon
> in Florida, you'll make an additional comment like the ones about "heroes", MoveOn
> and Obama. You can't help yourself.
>
> > Explain to me why I have SO little problem with so many other anti-
> > war folks? Because they aren't locked into the Reagan Rule, and aren't
> > willing to excuse/justify almost anything done by the left. Believe it
> > or not a lot of my friends here are activist types, ex-hippies,
> > etc...the difference being there is give and take in discussions with
> > them, not stonewalling and blanket defense.
>
> Because I've seen the pattern a metric buttload of times, Bill, and I start to get
> weary of it. Grotesque generalizations and smears like the one that got this ball
> rolling.
>
Once again your claim is that NONE of the national organizations know
anything about these activities, don't fund any of them, provide no
training, and there's no overlap between the folks leading the
national groups and the "direct action" groups. That's demonstrably
false, and has been demostrated numerous times.
There was serious talk of bringing either tax, or legal actions
against PETA, and HSUS because both were found to be channelling funds
to ALF/ELF PETA admitted it and did the, "It's only for non-violent
promotional use". bit and, after massive pressure, got off.
> > I admit, as you do, to being WAY more stubborn and offensive with you
> > becuase you take the sanctity position for the left. You critically
> > evaluate the left the way Malkin and Coulter evaluate the right. Most
> > of the folks, left, or right don't do that.
>
> You're saying I'm as bad as Malkin and Coulter? I find that to be absurd.
>
<<Snipped>>
I wanted to clarify this one, as I made a big error in how I phrased
it. You are a good, decent human being, they aren't. They are hate
mongers, you aren't.
I would've said that say you evaluate and defend the folks you agree
with in the same manner as they do, except in the last few posts I've
seen a slightly different tone, which was a lot more in line with what
I'd expect from the person I think you are. A huge part of my pounding
away at, asking if you "REALLY" support that, or "Give that a free
pass" is that I can't reconcile those positions with the good person
you seem to be. I pushed, you reacted, we got off into a totally
alternate reality.
I still do think that the some of the national folks do support,
fund, and promote intimidation and violence, and vehemently object to
the direction they are trying to take things . You think the same
about the right. With either group it's a case of which rights, and
freedoms do you wantr to lose. they're both gonna take things away.
Since I'm in favor of more freedom all around I'm even more screwed.
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill C
Bill C
> In article <d170b66c-0194-4ddb-82f1-158021ee1...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> After you told me I was a Stalinist Maoist FARCer, I happened to hear a song by
> the Stranglers called "No More Heroes" - that's where the lines are from, and why it
> appealed to me at the time I attached it as a sig file. Did you actually think I was
> favorably commenting on Trotsky?
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
>
Yeah I did. It's typical here. Goes well with the Gueverra shirts.
Bill C
Paul G.
Thanks for pointing that out. I think I understand it now. As Mr.
Baldwin so eloquently put it:
" Next [option], simply free the slaves. Without the necessary social
skills to assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many freeman
would have surely suffered great hardship and probable genocide.
Again this option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for
humanitarian reasons."
So here we have "anti-abolitionists" or alternatively people who are
"pro-life... as a slave" or simply "pro-slavery". These
conservatives were thoughtful people who were wise enough to
appreciate the pitfalls of freedom, and therefore kept people enslaved
for "humanitarian reasons".
Now contrast those wonderful people with the classic liberal, Hillary
Clinton. My God, the woman wants universal health insurance for all
Americans! How evil can you GET?!!!
-Paul
(I lived in Marin during my bike racing phase. *I* was the
conservative, compared with "Wild Man" Gary Fisher, Joe Breeze, et
al. I never expected to encounter NASCAR fans and people extolling
the virtues of slavery in a bike racing forum! )
-Paul
Donald Munro
> (I lived in Marin during my bike racing phase. *I* was the conservative,
> compared with "Wild Man" Gary Fisher, Joe Breeze, et al. I never expected
> to encounter NASCAR fans and people extolling the virtues of slavery in a
> bike racing forum! ) -Paul
If we didn't have a slave we wouldn't get any afternoon training rides.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> Now contrast those wonderful people with the classic liberal, Hillary
> Clinton.
funny stuff -- Hillbilly is a "classic liberal."
http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/historical_timeline.html
http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/liberalism_essay/index.html
The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
"As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of
private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." --
Joseph A. Schumpeter
> My God, the woman wants universal health insurance for all
> Americans! How evil can you GET?!!!
As if that is not evil enough, and not to mention illegal? Are you
having an obasm?
Tom Kunich
news:89ea3ba7-cedf-4a16...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The US is sinking into a recession caused by the health insurance scam
they're already committing which is making the dollar worth progressively
less and less. And stupid people can't see the connection.
Bill C
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in messagenews:89ea3ba7-cedf-4a16...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/rowan_gaither_quote_7f68
"[The task is to] covertly lower the standard of living, the whole
social
structure, of America so that we can be merged with all other
nations."
Quote by: Rowan Gaither
[Horace Rowan Gaither, Jr.] (1909-1961) Attorney, investment banker,
President of the Ford Foundation (1953-1956)
Date: 1954
Source: stated to Congressional Reese Commission investigator Norman
Dodd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation
Under considerable duress by several members of Congress, chief among
them Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the Foundation apologized and then
prohibited the promotion of "violence, terrorism, bigotry or the
destruction of any state" among its grantees, itself sparking protest
among university provosts and various non-profit groups on free speech
issues. [14]
Bill C
Michael Baldwin
>Thanks for pointing that out. I think I understand it
>now. As Mr. Baldwin so eloquently put it:
>" Next [option], simply free the slaves. Without the necessary
>social skills to assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many
>freeman would have surely suffered great hardship and probable
genocide.
>Again this option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for
>humanitarian reasons."
Just can't stop quoting me out of context can you Paul ? Have I
gotten under skin Paul?
You've yet to back a single word of your spew with one historically
_and_ period correct fact or quote.
I thought you'd ignore Lincoln's Springfield quote and you did.
You're so predictable. Lincoln said the Framers & Founders got it
right. See the _TRUTH_. See Paul run. See Paul run. LOL!
Get your Keds on Paul, because here's another fact that you can run
from. President Van Buren (Democrat) was a well noted abolitionist.
What he hated even more than slavery was _slaves_, as did many
abolitionist of that _era_.
When you can quote Humes, Hutcheson, Kames or Smith then I'll take
your charges under consideration. Until then I'll just consider you to
be some anomynous Usenet troll who used to carry water to the Legends of
Re-pack.
just regards - Mike Baldwin
PS - No self-described Liberal would ever drive a Ford Explorer you
fake.
Tom Kunich
news:25178-47...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
>
> PS - No self-described Liberal would ever drive a Ford Explorer you
> fake.
Around here you can tell the Liberals - they're the one's driving the
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, BMW X5, Cadillac Escalades, Ford Expeditions and
Chevy Suburbans. They're the one's complaining about $100 fillups and trying
to get gas prices down as low as possible.
Oh, yeah, and they're the one's telling the rest of us how corrupt we are.
RonSonic
wrote:
>On Mar 27, 9:08 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
>> Now contrast those wonderful people with the classic liberal, Hillary
>> Clinton.
>
>funny stuff -- Hillbilly is a "classic liberal."
>
>http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/historical_timeline.html
>http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/liberalism_essay/index.html
>
>The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
>kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
>
>"As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of
>private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." --
>Joseph A. Schumpeter
The modern liberal is nothing of the kind, more like a politicized libertine.
I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives and libertarians are
frequently mistaken for one another. It's a mixed blessing in that they are
often forced to make common cause, but good that they can.
Ron
Tom Kunich
news:uniou3htpqp4dr6k7...@4ax.com...
>
> I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives and libertarians
> are
> frequently mistaken for one another. It's a mixed blessing in that they
> are
> often forced to make common cause, but good that they can.
The problem is that although none of us like McCain, it looks like we must
vote for him to prevent either Obama or Hillary from getting in and seeing
the end of our country as we know it.
Fred Fredburger
>
> The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
> kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
>
Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.
Fred Fredburger
I have no idea how many times I've heard you say say something about
"the end of our country as we know it." It must have happened 20 times
by now. Or else you're just a drama queen.
Michael Baldwin
>I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives
>and libertarians are frequently mistaken for one another. It's a
>mixed blessing in that they are often forced to make
>common cause, but good that they can.
Ron, I think you meant to write _Liberals_ and not "libertarians".
I'm of _Libertarian_ persuasion. My personal philosophy is "the
reward of freedom is responsibility". I cannot imagine a Liberal ever
repeating those words little alone living by them.
Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
Tom Kunich
news:W82dnSMHOv2hx3Ha...@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that although none of us like McCain, it looks like we
>> must vote for him to prevent either Obama or Hillary from getting in and
>> seeing the end of our country as we know it.
>
> I have no idea how many times I've heard you say say something about "the
> end of our country as we know it." It must have happened 20 times by now.
> Or else you're just a drama queen.
Then since all of these conversations are stored you ought to be able to
find me saying that before. Unless, of course, you're a moronic idiot.
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2:49 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d170b66c-0194-4ddb-82f1-158021ee1...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
(snip a bunch of Trotsky and Marx quotes)
> > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> >
> > After you told me I was a Stalinist Maoist FARCer, I happened to hear a
> > song by the Stranglers called "No More Heroes" - that's where the lines are from,
> > and why it appealed to me at the time I attached it as a sig file. Did you
> > actually think I was favorably commenting on Trotsky?
> Yeah I did. It's typical here. Goes well with the Gueverra shirts.
Well, I suppose that isn't a surprise - you do seem to really believe that I'm a
Stalinist or Maoist or some other '-ist'. But I'd bet that no one else in here thinks
that, besides TK and possibly Greg (but he seems to think almost everyone else is
suspect).
Howard Kveck
wrote:
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in message
The suggestions of having a real health policy is causing a recession? You
seriously need to spend a bit of time paying attention to real econ news, Tom.
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2:49 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > There was NO thread hijack. TK started a thread on liberal fascism,
> > > everyone jumped into bashing him.
> >
> > Yeah, because he was wrong, you know? His definition of fascism is wrong
> > (and it appears you agree with it).
> >
> Never said a word on whether he was right or wrong, just that there
> was s group bashing in progress. granted he brings a LOT of that on
> himself.
But you join in with what you thought was an example that fit with his
proposition. That is what it looks like to me.
> Once again your claim is that NONE of the national organizations know
> anything about these activities, don't fund any of them, provide no
> training, and there's no overlap between the folks leading the
> national groups and the "direct action" groups. That's demonstrably
> false, and has been demostrated numerous times.
> There was serious talk of bringing either tax, or legal actions
> against PETA, and HSUS because both were found to be channelling funds
> to ALF/ELF PETA admitted it and did the, "It's only for non-violent
> promotional use". bit and, after massive pressure, got off.
Uh, maybe they "got off" because the case didn't stand the level of scrutiny that
was needed. Isn't that a principle that you talk about a lot in here inre: doping?
> > > I admit, as you do, to being WAY more stubborn and offensive with you
> > > becuase you take the sanctity position for the left. You critically
> > > evaluate the left the way Malkin and Coulter evaluate the right. Most
> > > of the folks, left, or right don't do that.
> >
> > You're saying I'm as bad as Malkin and Coulter? I find that to be
> > absurd.
> >
> <<Snipped>>
> I wanted to clarify this one, as I made a big error in how I phrased
> it. You are a good, decent human being, they aren't. They are hate
> mongers, you aren't.
> I would've said that say you evaluate and defend the folks you agree
> with in the same manner as they do, except in the last few posts I've
> seen a slightly different tone, which was a lot more in line with what
> I'd expect from the person I think you are. A huge part of my pounding
> away at, asking if you "REALLY" support that, or "Give that a free
> pass" is that I can't reconcile those positions with the good person
> you seem to be. I pushed, you reacted, we got off into a totally
> alternate reality.
Bill, my "tone" hasn't changed. Your perception of it doesn't match what I feel
when I write. I still disagree with your assessment of me in comparison to Coulter,
Malkin and Savage. They don't defend - they attack. I would say that my criticisms of
people and positions I disagree are focused: I don't make accusations that cover the
entire spectrum that I think is the the right of where I am. But you frequently do
exactly that with "the left" - witness how this got started. You keep telling me that
I dodge and avoid answering, but you haven't answered my query about you offering any
sort of proof that the people who disrupted an Easter service were going to be made
heros of by the vast majority of left-leaning people or why you'd think they'd be
welcomed with oopen arms by MoveOn or the Obama campaign. Instead, you turned this
into yet another referendum on my politics... I'm flattered that you think I'm a
"good person" but you also seem to have some very distorted ideas about what my
positions are. And a lot of that is because if I haven't responded vigorously enough
to whatever you're demanding to know, you jump to the most extreme conclusion. Kind
of like you do with groups like MoveOn or the Obama campaign.
--
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2:49 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
Bill said:
> > > Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to be
> > > murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
> > > State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
> > > try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
> > > I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.
> >
> > People who consider abortionto be murder are marginalized? Hmm, I guess
> > visits to the White House and promises of Supreme Court members who'll overturn
> > Roe v. Wade is as marginalized as one can get.
>
> Here we go again. How clearly do I have to state a specific condition
> to get you to reply to the damned question? You avoid like a dodgeball
> PHD. I specifically made the case for here in Mass., or I could've
> made the case for Gay Rights in Kansas. That you would've answered.
Sorry, I forgot to answer because I was so taken aback at the suggestion that
anti-abortion people have been "marginalized" in the US political scene. I'm fine
with them protesting, just like I'm fine with anti-war people marching or Nazis or
pretty much any group. I'm less interested in any of them engaging in violence.
Howard Kveck
wrote:
> "RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
If we consider our country "as we know it" to be one in which the Executive branch
does not feel the need to be answerable to the other two branches, one in which they
can spy on a broad-based spectrum of US citizens, one in which science is devalued
when it doesn't agree with the political considerations of the administration's
backers, one in which our standing in the world is at rock bottom due to the
aggressive and belligerant behavior of the administration, one in which a major city
can be as close to lost as can be due to the grotesque incompetence of the people who
are paid to properly respond to an emergency, one in which the entire Department of
Justice is politicised so as to guarantee the continued stay in power of one
political party, then I say bring it on.
Howard Kveck
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives and libertarians are
> frequently mistaken for one another.
You know, a libertarian is a Republican who owns a bong.