Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, spoke proudly of how, in July 1979, he had "signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul" and so helped draw a Russian interventionary force into Afghanistan. "On the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border," Brzezinski added, "I wrote to President Carter, saying, in essence: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.'" And so they did -- with the help of the CIA, Saudi money, the Pakistani intelligence services, and an influx of Arab jihadis, including Osama bin Laden. In fact, their Afghan War would prove far more disastrous for the Soviet Union than defeat in Vietnam had been for the United States. By the time the Soviets withdrew their last troops in February 1989, the economy of the Cold War's weaker superpower was tottering on the brink. Less than three years later, the Soviet Union itself was no more, even as Washington, at first unbelieving, then celebratory, declared eternal victory.
It is far clearer now, as American economic power visibly crumbles, that rather than a victor and a vanquished there were two great power losers in the Cold War. The weaker, the Soviet Union, simply imploded first, while the U.S., enwreathed in a rhetoric of triumphalism and self-congratulation, was far more slowly making its way toward the exit. Seldom mentioned here, however, is a grotesque irony: as the U.S. seems to be experiencing the beginning stages of its imperial implosion, it is also -- as the Soviet Union was in the 1980s -- enmired in a war without end in Afghanistan against a ragtag army of Afghan insurgents supported by foreign jihadist volunteers.
One difference, of course: The Soviets were, in part, brought to the edge of bankruptcy and collapse by a war supported to the hilt, and to the tune of billions of dollars as well as massive infusions of weaponry, by the other superpower. The U.S. is heading for its analogous moment without an enemy superpower in sight. If anything, a single man -- Osama bin Laden -- might be said to have filled the former superpower role, which, were the results less grim, would be little short of farcical. That this has come to pass is, of course, partly the result of the Bush administration's many imperial blunders, including its invasion of Iraq and its urge to garrison the oil lands of the planet from the Middle East to Central Asia. Like all historical analogies, the Afghan one may be less than exact, but it does stare us in the face and, eerie as it is, it's hard to account for its absence from discussion here in the U.S.
If you want to grasp just how deeply the United States is now entangled in its own catastrophic Afghan War, you need only read Anand Gopal's recent report from that country on the failed U.S. surge in Afghanistan -- yes, there was one back in 2007 -- the costs for Afghan civilians, and the increasingly powerful Taliban insurgency that has emerged from it. He ends his piece with what might be considered a pre-epitaph for the American war: "This is a war to be won by constructing roads, creating jobs, cleaning up the government, and giving Afghans something they've had preciously little of in the last 30 years: hope. However, hope is fading fast here, and that's a fact Washington can ill afford to ignore; for once the Afghans lose all hope, the Americans will have lost this war." His report could not be more vivid or sobering for a country readying itself, under a new president, to pour yet more troops into Afghanistan.
Your injecting way too much drama into it all, TOM. We will stay untill we can achieve a stability that enables us to leave and claim at least a marginal victory, which will last for awhile until some strong man takes over, is chastised roundly for human rights violation as he consolidates his power, and the region will settle down again.
And we will move on, like the British did, our economic and political strength more than enough to offset the effects of our trials there, as after Vietnam: Unlike Russia, where the Afghan debacle was the stick that finally knocked down a already rotten structure.
And the same can probably be predicted for Iraq.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2008 @ 11:33am
And we will move on, like the British did, our economic and political strength more than enough to offset the effects of our trials there, And the same can probably be predicted for Iraq.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2008 @ 11:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
As I recall, historical superpowers like the British and Spanish empires didn't have too much of a choice about "moving on."
Posted by OneVote at 10/09/2008 @ 11:49am
Maybe not Spain, ONEVOTE,(not that they were ever in the region) but Britain could have stuck it out longer. I think the result would have be the same, though.
The only guy who EVER managed to subdue the area was Chinggis Khan, and he did it through the absolute ,unequivicol extermination of anyone who so much as batted an eye at him. We, obviously are not prepared to do that, (not that I'm advocating it) so we can't win "normally". Even the Russians didn't take it that far.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2008 @ 11:55am
YAY!!!
i'm sick of us being the only superpower...
time to get our shit straight and look out for our own welfare...moral and economic...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 12:01pm
End of Cold War Dividend usurped by MIC -we could have declared the triumph of democracy (mafia posing as capitalists), but this was not to be. Experts correctly predicted that we would be next to topple because MIC's pushing the Soviet Union to bankruptcy was self interested, and that self interest had and would continue to turn on its own institutions and people to advance its agenda and profits. We are in a pickle to be sure. Neocons have assured that Iran will have Irag and the huge increase in oil prices has created a resurgent Russia superpower, as well as lining the pockets of folks who don't exactly have our best interests at heart. Catch this morning news? OPEC considering an emergency meeting to discuss reducing supply in order to keep base oil prices at around $75/barrel (price without trader speculation which obviously will keep it higher than $75). Good luck to us. Invisible hand indeed!
Posted by OneVote at 10/09/2008 @ 12:05pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2008 @ 11:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
Chip...I am thinking bigger picture.
Posted by OneVote at 10/09/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2008 @ 11:33am
So you don't buy into the "bringing democracy to the Middle East" thing...
it's just "getting OUR kind of dictator in power", like the old days?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 12:10pm
it's just "getting OUR kind of dictator in power", like the old days?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Looks like we "moved on" a little too quickly in Pakistan.....lol......
Posted by OneVote at 10/09/2008 @ 12:17pm
We are in the beginning stages of total collapse. Take a look at "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips or "Reinventing Collapse" by Dmitri Orlov for the road map.
Posted by Stevebremne at 10/09/2008 @ 12:20pm
Ah, a thread to warm the heart of any leftist. The left practically drools at even a slight prospect that the US might be taken down.
As I've noted continuously, this is the real desire of the left. They want to see the US stripped of it's power and relegated to 3rd world status.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/09/2008 @ 12:27pm
As I've noted continuously, this is the real desire of the left. They want to see the US stripped of it's power and relegated to 3rd world status.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/09/2008 @ 12:27pm | warn this person
Now this is amusing. So the libs want the US destroyed and the right carries it out. Hmmmmmmmmm
Sig Heil LivLib!
Posted by OneVote at 10/09/2008 @ 12:46pm
Stunning complacency, there, "Chip". Actually, societies, like people, suffer both 'positive' and 'negative' effects, including when they lose a war.
Vietnam is still with us, both culturally, politically, and in a way, economically. Even the 1929 Depression is still with us. People who think that, after a serious reverse, individuals 'just go on' are kidding themselves. They go on all right, but in a different way. They go on, damaged. Oppression oppresses. Aging ages. Loss is called 'loss' for a reason. If you do not learn from your loss, you just plain 'lose.'
People who can't see that society is a dialectically 'growing' or 'decaying' process will miss its development, or decay. In fact, it is those who miss the signs of decay that allow the process - to speed up. Thanks, "Chipper", for missing the ball. Next war, anyone?
Posted by ElyDog at 10/09/2008 @ 1:02pm
time to get our shit straight and look out for our own welfare...moral and economic...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 12:01pm
it's cheaper.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/09/2008 @ 1:04pm
Since the end of WW2 the US has been up to no good. That's sixty plus years of brutalizing at worst, meddling at best. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/09/2008 @ 1:07pm
Ah, a thread to warm the heart of any leftist.
™™ go on.
The left practically drools at even a slight prospect that the US might be taken down.
™™ i imagine not. they live there and probably want to pay lower taxes through a policy sane spending.
As I've noted continuously, this is the real desire of the left.
™™ you're not right.
They want to see the US stripped of it's power
™™ and you want it striped in red, white and blood.
and relegated to 3rd world status.
™™ right. so their kids can die of typhoid.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/09/2008 @ 1:10pm
I'm pretty sure I've got the diagnosis already...paranoid delusional comes to mind.
Posted by madlib at 10/09/2008 @ 1:31pm
No, the left seems to have long held the dominant posession of that mental disorder.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/09/2008 @ 1:44pm
That's right MASK I don't subscribe to the notion of ramming democracy down the throats of Middle Easterners, or anybody, for that matter) I believe it to be the best system all around, but a close study of the history ofMiddle Eastern (and Moslem) culture and society leads me to believe that religion is still too intertwined in their everyday actions to leave much room for an American style democracy, complete with intertwining political/economic rights. For example, how do you provide for the rights of women in the face of the religious based tendency to regard them as second class citizens.
So no, Bush was foolish and arrogant attempting this.He should have "stuck with the program" Sorry for the length
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2008 @ 1:45pm
lvliberty-You were just on another board spewing paranoia as you frequently do about commies,the left,etc
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/09/2008 @ 2:17pm
lvliberty-It is a fact that paranoia is quite common amongst you on the far right and those on the far left.It is one of the many things that you have in common with one another.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/09/2008 @ 2:19pm
The left wants to see America subservient to other countries,and many on the left see no distinction between the United States and what was the Soviet Union.
The left sees American economic and military strength as bad.
But the left overlooks how that strength has been used to help out other people, with military help saving Europe in World War II and economic help to Europe afterwards that kept much of Europe from becoming communist.
American strength has been put to use to help others to a greater degree than any other nation has done in human history.
But many on the left see this as wrong. Don't believe me? Then go over to The Progressive and read some of what "historian" Howard Zinn writes.
And what Zero says above that America was supposed to do after the cold war IS WHAT AMERICA DID during the Clinton administration, to our peril.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 2:27pm
sjchermak-Read what I just said about paranoia amongst those of you on the far right and those on the far left.It is a fact.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/09/2008 @ 2:29pm
From the perspective of a person who lived in the Soviet Union for 14 years, I can tell you that no one would ever imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse because of bankruptcy.
Because of restricted travel and communications with the outside world, no one knew about the dire circumstances of everyday living of the working poor.
While the SSSR was projecting an image of a prosperous and powerful nation by engaging in humanitarian as well as military efforts abroad, it neglected the well-being of it's own populace.
Isn't the same thing happening here in the US? Our jobs are disappearing, our infrasructure is declining, our middle class is melting down, and we are relentlessly engaging ourselves in foreign conflicts with no end in sight.
If you think the US is immune to economic collapse, think again. Many great empires have come and gone before us: the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Empire. We are no exception to the rule.
Posted by diogenes2 at 10/09/2008 @ 2:36pm
Sorelish says above "Since the end of WW2 the US has been up to no good."
Like the Berlin airlift? How was that no good?
Or the Marshall plan? How was that no good?
Or the current efforts to fight AIDS in Africa. How is that no good?
http://www.mg.co.za/ article/ 2008-01-29-bush- asks-for-more-money-to -fight-aids-in-africa
Frosty Zoom says "i imagine not. they live there and probably want to pay lower taxes through a policy sane spending."
Frosty say liberals want to pay lower taxes? Not all of them!
There is a liberal in my own town who has written letters to the editor saying she doesn't mind paying taxes (because they are for the "greater good", I guess) and she thinks everybody should be willing to, and glad to, pay more tax!
I am not joking! Frosty, maybe you want to pay less tax but others of your political allegiance think paying taxes is good, and want eveybody to pay more.
Tom Engelhardt looks fondly on the prospect of a declining America, because Mr. Engelhardt probably wants America to be like Sweden.
But Sweden did not bail Europe out during World War II, or promote the Berlin airlift or the Marshall Plan afterwards, nor is Sweden who other people look to when they need help.
So what is so great about being like Sweden, no doubt a comfortable place to live where if you want to you can live at the expense of others, and take no responsibility for making the world a better place?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 2:36pm
i'm nobody,
??????
Why are you posting in to me with that comment?
I did not comment on anything you said. I posted some comments about what the Left in general wants to see, and the inability of the left to see how the American existence has benefited the world.
These comments were not in response to you. They were directed at Tom Engelhardt's article, plus comments by Frosty Zoom, Sorelish, and Zero.
???????
Why are you posting in to me?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 2:39pm
sjchermak-Your post was quite paranoid.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/09/2008 @ 2:40pm
The left sees American economic and military strength as bad.----Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 2:27pm
Then why was it The Right that got rid of them over the last 7 years?!??!??!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 2:45pm
Okay i'm nobody, YOU WIN!!!
If saying that the left wants America to decline so it is like Sweden is paranoid, then I guess I am paranoid!!
Problem is, much of the left wants America to decline so it is like Sweden.
So it is true (that the left wants America to decline so it is like Sweden), but apparently this is one of the many things that are not supposed to be said or commented on.
Just like obviously one is not supposed to criticize Barack Obama.
I guess conservatives are supposed to just stand by, shut up, and let the left direct whatever needs to be directed in order that whatever the left wants to happen, will happen.
If the left wants America to decline so it is like Sweden, we on the right are supposed to just let it be. If we comment on it, we are paranoid.
Okay, I get the point.
One thing you might want to take note of, i'm nobody:
The "right" is not going to shut up and let it be. Sorry about that, but it is what it is.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 2:47pm
I am not joking! Frosty, maybe you want to pay less tax but others of your political allegiance think paying taxes is good, and want eveybody to pay more.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 2:36pm
no. i want to stop paying stupid tax.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/09/2008 @ 3:01pm
the problem is spending, not taxes.
$$453,@$43444,,`¡11,234 in debt should give you some clues.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/09/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 2:47pm
Apparently, SJCHER has never seen the Swedish Bikini Team!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 3:05pm
For example, how do you provide for the rights of women in the face of the religious based tendency to regard them as second class citizens.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/09/2008
Making a federal case of suffrage: the Nineteenth Amendment
Many groups were opposed to women's suffrage at the time.
On January 12, 1915, a suffrage bill was brought before the House of Representatives but was lost by a vote of 174 to 204. Again a bill was brought before the House, on January 10, 1918. On the evening before President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the bill. It was passed with one more vote than was needed to make the necessary two-thirds majority. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Again President Wilson made an appeal, and on September 30, 1918, the question was put to the vote, but two votes were lacking to make the two-thirds majority. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon, and then it was lost by only one vote.
There was considerable anxiety among politicians of both parties to have the amendment passed and made effective before the general elections of 1920, so the President called a special session of Congress, and a bill, introducing the amendment, was brought before the House again. On May 21, 1919, it was passed, 42 votes more than necessary being obtained. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate, and after a long discussion it was passed, with 56 ayes and 25 nays. It only remained that the necessary number of states should ratify the action of Congress. Within a few days Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan, their legislatures being then in session, passed the ratifications. Other states then followed their examples, and Tennessee was the last of the needed 36 states to ratify, in the summer of 1920
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/09/2008 @ 3:06pm
sjchermak-I've known many people on the left,like my wife,and they want America to be on top.Get into reality.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/09/2008 @ 3:08pm
sjchermak
My wife's stepfather, although not an ethnic Swede, worked in that country for many years. he says the difference between that country & here is like night & day. As a blue collar worker he was amazed to see a coworker with 25 years experience pink-slipped due to a personality conflict with his supervisor. He said that in Sweden a panel would have arbitrated that action & the process may have taken a year to unfold!
He came to the US after the great impression made on him by GIs after WW2. He said Americans spoke like they were chewing gum!. He said they were good natured & positive & after immigrating to Australia for a few years (he liked Aussies, but couldn't tolerate the landscape. It offended his N. European sensibilities) he came to America. What a letdown in the workplace! Few workers rights, lousy vacation time & a cutthroat atmosphere. He's still here & in his 80's. He says if McCain is elected he'll go back to Sweden. He's seen war in & out of a uniform. He wants no part of empire building.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/09/2008 @ 3:35pm
Hi Sorelish,
It must have been frustrating for the coworker your wife's stepfather mentioned to experience what the coworker had to go through.
However, protection/arbitration to guard against unfairness in the workplace has gone way too far the other way.
Such protection not only is in place in Sweden, but here in America in Government employment and in the teaching profession in Government run schools.
Teachers are not paid by merit, but by seniority. That is not fair to the kids who are learning from good teachers not rewarded by their work, nor is it fair for the parents who pay the school tax bill.
And the quality of education can not help but decline, because good teachers not rewarded will get demoralized and either their quality will suffer or they will leave the profession altogether.
And then when it gets to the point where a poor teacher needs to be dismissed, the teacher practically can not be fired. The teacher has all kinds of due process, which results in turning the tables and making the process an examination of the supervisor (principal or department head or school superintendent, etc) with demands for so much documentation of the offending teachers poor performance that most times schools do not fight the battle, and the poor teacher stays on the job.
This is far more unfair than an individual employee having to deal with life's unfairness.
No, unfairness is not good, but in this case lousy teachers that can't be fired is far worse and far reaching, so you have to go with the unfairness that has less negative impact.
The reality is we can not be insulated from all unfairness in life, and it is wrong to weaken things for all in an effort to do so. Well intentioned efforts to stop unfairness have sometimes made things worse.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 4:04pm
cons, so full of paranoid crapola. You guys need a collective enema.
Don't you ever get tired of peddling this nonsense about 'Merica Haters?
( I heard Howard Zinn is actually the one that made all of Saddams wmd's flow into Syria! And that if it were not for Walter Ruether, Henry Ford was going to create a far more utopian middle class!))
Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2008 @ 4:15pm
If I were to say that I was on my way to get by sins absolved by having a gerbil swung over my head...
would Liver and SJ stand by my right of religion?
what if I let the gerbil sway my vote?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 4:04pm
Sorelish, don't ask him to prove this....he just "feels it in his gut"!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 4:39pm
Hi crabwalk,
About Howard Zinn...
=================
http://www.frontpagemag.com/ Articles/Read.aspx? GUID=%7B96ACFDE4- A42F-4AA1-B7B6- A4C3A382A74E%7D
Dennis Prager: I think a good part of your view is summarized when you say, "If people knew history, they would scoff at that, they would laugh at that" -- the idea that the United States is a force for the betterment of humanity. I believe that we are the country that has done more good for humanity than any other in history. What would you say...we have done more bad than good, we're in the middle, or what?
Howard Zinn: Probably more bad than good.
======================
crabwalk, there is no paranoia involved in the discussion of Howard Zinn's dislike for America as we know it. His statements are in the public domain.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 5:07pm
Hi Maskdelta,
About teachers......
=======================
Monday, February 19, 2007 How To Fire An Incompetent Teacher? Not Easy
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/ 2007/02/how-to-fire- incompetent-teacher.html
The series of steps a principal must take to dismiss a public school teach is Byzantine. "It's almost impossible," Klein complains.
The regulations are so onerous that principals rarely even try to fire a teacher. Most just put the bad ones in pretend-work jobs, or sucker another school into taking them. (They call that the "dance of the lemons.") The city payrolls include hundreds of teachers who have been deemed incompetent, violent, or guilty of sexual misconduct. Since the schools are afraid to let them teach, they put them in so-called "rubber rooms" instead. There they read magazines, play cards, and chat, at a cost to New York taxpayers of $20 million a year.
http://oldsite.reason.com/ 0610 /howtofireanincompetentteacher.pdf
======================
Why Bad Teachers Aren't Fired Tenure makes this 'mission impossible'
http://www.eagleforum.org /educate/1998/dec98 /teachers.html
=================
Conway Teacher Can't Be Fired After Drug Arrest
May 29, 2008 The Associated Press
http://www.mpp.org/ states/new-hampshire /news/conway-teacher -cant-be-fired.html
========================
For Kids' Sake, Power to Fire Teachers Crucial By Jay Mathews Monday, September 29, 2008; Page B02
http://www.washingtonpost.com /wp-dyn/content/article /2008/09/28/ AR2008092802545.html
================
Maskdelta.... I could have kept going till kingdom come with these links but I will stop as I am approaching the word limit.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 5:21pm
Anyone notice LVL is getting more and more shrill as this election slips farther and farther away?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/09/2008 @ 5:27pm
time to develop alternative energy so we DON'T NEED TO GIVE A SHIT WHAT HAPPENS IN OIL LAND.
yay and huzzah.
the empire is over, folks. thank god...too bad we could not have chosen when and how...
but of course we could have. as ZERO suggested, we could have reduced our military budgets and invested that money in infrastructure and implementation of alternative energy sources...
peace dividend? yeah, right...
and how these trolls screech their lies!!!
oh well...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 5:49pm
If I were to say that I was on my way to get by sins absolved by having a gerbil swung over my head...
would Liver and SJ stand by my right of religion?
what if I let the gerbil sway my vote?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/09/2008 @ 4:19pm
Yes, however, one question? Clockwise or counterclockwise?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/09/2008 @ 6:01pm
THE DYSTOPIC FUTURE IS NOW!!!!!!
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 7:37pm
well...
the rightwing had their chance to show how superior their ideology is and just look at where it has gotten us.
exactly where i said it would for years...
1929 all over again!!!!
hard to feel too good about the victory, though...it IS a depression, after all...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 7:42pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/09/2008 @ 5:21pm
Interesting EDITORIALS....
BTW, couldn't open the one to www.mpp.org.
What IS mpp.org?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 8:04pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 8:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
marijuana policy project...pro pot site...hmmm....
hey SJ, you holdin'?
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 8:20pm
"As I've noted continuously, this is the real desire of the left. They want to see the US stripped of it's power and relegated to 3rd world status."--loveliberty
I would think from one of your recent posts on another topic where you noted you were all about helping the poor, that you would love the 3rd world status. Hell, we're halfway there because of conservative policies of the past 28 years. Why not seal the deal?
As to other comments re Howard Zinn and us doing more bad than good, let's be good Christians and apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others, say like Al Qaeda, or for the state minded, the former Soviet Union. If we are not hypocrites it is clear that like the former USSR we have done awful things. Why is the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan bad and us invading Vietnam good? If you are a hypocrite, at least one that believes all our government does is good, then you will find a rose colored world. Ask people in Chile, Nicaragua, aforementioned Vietnam, current Iraq and Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the Phillipines, just to name a few and the world looks very different. That is Zinn's work: asking those people about whom we don't usually give a shit.
Sometimes those about whom we don't give a shit get pissed and do things like fly planes into buildings or set off IEDs in Iraq. Strange how that happens.
Posted by onthehelm at 10/09/2008 @ 9:51pm
Pretty amazing - Cheney with an assist from megamultinationals, esp media kingpins, Bin Laden, Rove, and GWB - has gutted us, splayed us open.
Cheney, the ultra-terrorist.
Posted by winyahn at 10/09/2008 @ 9:59pm
Asider: Other day, we sold isrg@270, down from 280. Bummer? Na, now it's 170!
Posted by winyahn at 10/09/2008 @ 10:01pm
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 8:20pm
OMG! You meant that SJCHER is sourcing a....
PRO-DRUG WEBSITE?!!??!?!!??!?!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 10:17pm
RE: The Second ...
Well, the job's ways over what Dubya's capable of (as well as the guys who are running for his seat).
Posted by HelenDAO at 10/09/2008 @ 11:00pm
PRO-DRUG WEBSITE?!!??!?!!??!?!??
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/09/2008 @ 10:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
must be a libertarian...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/09/2008 @ 11:22pm
Oh yeah, mask, I'll never ask a repub for proof. Hell, even Michael Savage has written books. This alone is proof that all pub information doesn't come through the airwaves. Not everything is "scoop du jour"!
If progressive heaven was ever achieved, there'd always be a welfare queen somewhere to make their case.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/10/2008 @ 01:00am
No, the left seems to have long held the dominant posession of that mental disorder.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/09/2008 @ 1:44pm
Actually, Larry, the sort of theocratic authoritarianism you favor is actually the result of any number of psychiatric disorders, from your raging paranoia (your idea that "Christians" are oppressed because we don't follow your orders) to your utter narcissism (your continued insistence that you be worhipped, as you apparently believe that you and God are one and the same). You support murderers and torturers and thieves because those people would give you power over others. And if Jesus were alive today, I have no doubt whatever that you would be railing against him - sorry, Larry, but Jesus was a liberal - and calling for his execution. Like the good Sadducee you really are.
Posted by jmusolino at 10/10/2008 @ 02:21am
Posted by Sorelish at 10/10/2008 @ 01:00am
Just an odd assortment of "proof" that SJCHER offered up....some EDITORIALS...
and a PRO-DRUG WEBSITE?!?!??!?!????
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/10/2008 @ 09:01am
Hello onthehelm,
You asked above "Why is the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan bad and us invading Vietnam good?"
Perhaps because communists were trying to impose communism on South Vietnam, which they had no right whatever to do. Communists who were supported by the Soviet Union.
You present your question with the implication that we were trying to impose our way on Vietnam. Not true, we were trying to save Vietnam from having communism imposed upon it.
And back then we were in the cold war, with the Soviet goal of imposing communism world-wide, thus it was in our national interest to stop the spread of communism.
Ultimately, the intent was to impose communism upon the United States. The communists' own words say so, going back to Lenin himself. Remember Kruschev saying that "We will bury you"?
The circumstances of our involvement in Vietnam were complex, and certainly involved what I have said above, in fact they were totally driven by what I have said above.
But, as I said, with your sentence equating the Soviets in Afghanistan to our involvement in Vietnam, you and others brush past how we were trying to stop the spread of communism.
No where can anybody make a case that we went into Vietnam because we were acting as "imperialists" who wanted possession of Vietnam for it's own sake just because we were trying to establish some American "empire" that included Vietnam.
The Cold War and the need to at least contain and hopefully stop the advancement of communism is the only context that existed, with regard to the subject of Vietnam.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 12:43pm
Exactly...see, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to impose Communism...and they lost and the Taliban (worse than the Communists) took over.
We went to war in Vietnam to stop the Communists....and we lost and the Communists took over....and now we do a TON of lucrative business with them.
We invaded Afghanistan to stop the Taliban....then we dropped the ball and went into Iraq and forgot about Afghanistan for 6 years, and now it looks like the Taliban may re-take it....
so...in 20 years, we should be importing a lot of cheap goods from the Taliban and nobody will care anymore!
It's a great strategy!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/10/2008 @ 3:06pm
No where can anybody make a case that we went into Vietnam because we were acting as "imperialists" who wanted possession of Vietnam for it's own sake just because we were trying to establish some American "empire" that included Vietnam.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
See SJerk, it's easy to shoot down someone else's 'rationale' when you just make up some doofus claim about it out of thin air. Whoever told you the line about "we were acting as "imperialists" who wanted possession of Vietnam for it's own sake just because we were trying to establish some American "empire" that included Vietnam"????
Voices in your head?
.
Offshore Plays Boosting Production Vietnam Finds Oil in the Basement
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/Vietnam.cfm
Vietnam ranks third in oil production among Association of South East Asian Nations countries, trailing only Indonesia and Malaysia.
If its current rate of development continues, Vietnam will become the world's 30th largest oil-producing nation.
And perhaps the most startling aspect about Vietnam -- most of its production comes from offshore basement reservoirs
.
BLACK GOLD HOT GOLD The Rise of Fascism in the American Energy Business
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj050701-3.html
In the 1920's an insider secret became known to a few people. It was published in an exhaustive world resources survey book written by a renowned world-traveling geologist named Hoover, who later became a US President. Not many copies were printed and few people read the book. The secret was that one of the world's largest potential oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right off French Indo-China, now known as Viet Nam.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 3:29pm
Ultimately, the intent was to impose communism upon the United States.
The circumstances of our involvement in Vietnam were complex, and certainly involved what I have said above, in fact they were totally driven by what I have said above.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
So we invaded Vietnam to protect communists from taking over the United States?
(Raise eyes to the sky, point finger at ear, and slowly draw circles.)
Sure SJerk...
...simple...er complex...er...whatever you say.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 3:38pm
Lillian,
It was said above that we "invaded Vietnam"
Since we did not "invade Vietnam", anybody using the words "invading Vietnam", must be implying things along the lines of what I said about "imperialism".
I have inferred what the poster probably meant, and it is not voices in my head but derived from having reviewed and read commentary by the left for quite a while now.
We did not launch an "invasion" of Vietnam similar to, for example, the invasion of Normandy on D-Day to liberate Europe from the Nazis.
We gradually built up forces in Vietnam. There was no "invasion" either in a positive sense, i.e., to stop communism, or in the negative sense, i.e., implication that America was doing wrong.
So when somebody uses the word invasion with regard to Vietnam, that tells me that they are looking at it from a blame America or America is wrong perspective.
Then you say "So we invaded Vietnam to protect communists from taking over the United States? "
So now you are saying we invaded Vietnam! How did we invade Vietnam?
And you question that we did it to stop communism from eventually overtaking the U.S.
It is great that you can look at what happened 40 years ago with the perspective of a Monday Morning Quarterback. You forget how in the 50's and 60's (as well as beyond) we were in the Cold War with the Soviets, with Soviet world domination being the Soviet goal.
Certainly any advancement of communism was looked upon as another step towards the Soviet goal, and was looked upon as something that needed to be stopped.
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. You need to look at it from the framework of life back in those days.
Yes, some leftists back then thought communism was A-OK, but most people saw it as a threat to our very existence.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm
As to Iraq and Afghanistan specifically, the cost of these wars has been increased by the privatization of national defense and the government in general. Government has become a source of corporate welfare in such programs as the missile defense system and many government defense contracts. However, "Free Trade" along with the outsourcing of industries and jobs are the main villains in weakening the American Market and economy. Tariffs were designed, in part, to encourage the development of an industrial base to supply our defense needs. Both Washington and Hamilton did not again want to go foreign powers to supply our defense needs, as we had to do during the American Revolution. During the American Civil War, the industrial base, that Hamilton planned benefited Union forces. The Confederacy, because it lacked an industrial base, was force to run the Union Naval Blockade to get their arms from abroad. They also felt that there was no real independence for a country without economic independence. For over two hundred year, our economic polices were based on Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures".
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/10/2008 @ 4:05pm
most people saw it as a threat to our very existence.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually, I'm old enough to remember firsthand...and no, 'most people' didn't think that. Only the small, sub-section of far-right wingnuts that you no-doubt idolize thought that.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 4:27pm
most people saw it as a threat to our very existence.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually, I'm old enough to remember firsthand...and no, 'most people' didn't think that. Only the small, sub-section of far-right wingnuts that you no-doubt idolize thought that.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 4:29pm
I have inferred what the poster probably meant...
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Well no, what you did was 'make up your version of what he said' so you could rail against that version...
...rather than what he actually said.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 4:30pm
BTW, SJCHER....again...
a PRO-DRUG WEBSITE?!?!??!?
I didn't realize you were a libertarian on legalization?!!??!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/10/2008 @ 4:32pm
We did not launch an "invasion" of Vietnam similar to, for example, the invasion of Normandy on D-Day to liberate Europe from the Nazis.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Or say, the invasion of Iraq?
See, strangely, the 'invasion' of Iraq was launched under the exact same rationale as the 'invasion' (or whatever term you care to make up to try to disguise the 'action' of sending 1/2 million of our military personel into a foreign country) of Vietnam...
...protecting America from communists...er terrorists.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 4:35pm
And you question that we did it to stop communism from eventually overtaking the U.S.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Indeed I do question it. Only the dumbest, most partisan loons ever willfully blinded themselves to the fact that rationale was blantant BS.
The 'Domino Effect' was as stupid as 'The Trickle-Down Effect'...
...or as Bush Sr. put it, "Voodoo Economics"...
...anone who bought that tripe was laughed at as a complete simpleton!
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 4:41pm
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. You need to look at it from the framework of life back in those days.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Really? I am?
Funny, I LIVED it...
...so my 'perspective' is actually my memory...
...which is actually pretty darned good, thank you.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 4:43pm
BTW Sjerk, how much of that pot have you been smoking while hanging out with the 'pro legalization' bunch over at mpp.org?
Have you met Darladoon?
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 4:45pm
Lillian,
Your "memory" no doubt is good, but you are obviously very far on the left side of the political spectrum, so your perspective is based on your ideology.
And thus your opinions are framed and developed accordingly.
They represent a view of the world as you saw it. As well as what you refer to as "most people".
It is quite possible (and since I don't personally know you I do not know for sure) and quite likely that most people you associate with are of the same ideology as yours.
I of course do not know but IF that is the case (note I said IF and that I am NOT declaring for aboslute certain) than you may well NOT know what "most people" really think. You may only know what "most" of the people you associate with think.
In the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg, he mentioned a woman who had voted for George McGovern in 1972, a year in which Richard Nixon won the presidency by a landslide.
This woman he cited was beside herself, in a quandry as to how Nixon could have won. She could not imagine how it could have been, because she said that "Nobody I know voted for Nixon".
This woman in the example did not associate with people other than those of the same ideology as her, and her perspective was framed by that.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 6:34pm
I was around for Vietnam too. What I recall was that many people supported the war unquestioningly, and believed "Communism" (in reality, Sovietism) had to be stopped. I think many people in civilian government positions and in the military actually fought for this cause. However, this belief was misguided, as we now know: China attempted to invade Vietnam soon after the U.S. left, and was repelled: Vietnam did not want a "Communist" government. Behind the scenes, I'm not sure that there was an intentional desire to take over the oil fields of Vietnam. I wouldn't be surprised.
However, I'm fairly sure that, in reality, there was no clear-cut, legitimate reason to fight in Vietnam: It was partly a matter of saving face--as the war became bogged down, Johnson and then Nixon couldn't face the possibility of losing the war (and being the first American president in memory to lose a war), or to know that so many lives had been wasted. For their supporters, staying there became a matter of national pride. Idiotic, in hind site, but we're seeing it repeated: the situation was and is now complex, involving many years of previous conflicts and the maneuvering of the French in Vietnam and the British in Iraq. It's much simpler to see things in an us versus the bad guys way, ignoring the fact that the majority of the Vietnamese supported the north, and the fact that the current administration in Iraq has requested that we leave by next June.
But more to the point: saying that Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes wrecked the country, and that the financial sector that reaped the benefits should be punished, is not the same thing as wanting the country to fail. Just the opposite. However, many of the people who are shouting America first, now, seem to be unwilling to see that Congress just donated 700 billion dollars to those same guilty parties. The anger should be directed there, not at people who point out who caused the problem.
Strangely, as someone leaning left, I feel much as the house Republicans did before they were persuaded to vote for the Bush plan. I suspect that many people who are on the other side of the political spectrum do, too. We shouldn't be getting angry about why we were in Vietnam. We should be joining forces and getting angry about why we're donating money to CEO's. We may disagree about a lot of things, but don't we agree that this move is unforgivable?
Posted by JakeJohnson at 10/10/2008 @ 7:36pm
The Afghan war did not bankrupt the USSR. It was the flooding of the oil market by Saudi Arabia at the behest of the Reagan administration that saw their only export commodity drop to U.S$10 a barrel. The current ascendancy of Russia is due to its position as the world's largest oil and natural gas supplier just as the world's major oil fields are passing their peak of production and heading into permanent decline - including Saudi Arabia's super-giant Ghawar field.
America is headed toward permanent decline as its energy sources are either cut off by being sidelined by other customers, such as China and India, or depleted through natural attrition such as the collapse of the Mexican oil supply - Mexico's Cantarell field is now in a permanent decline of 18% per year.
The current economic collapse stems not just from the marketing of worthless U.S. financial derivatives but from an energy shortage whiplash effect. Do you believe that it was just a coincidence that the peak in oil prices was just before the worst of the financial debacle began? Dream on. The only way for the world to extend the oil-peak plateau is through DEMAND-DESTRUCTION, which is what we are seeing today - even though it may be an unintended and painful consequence.
However, China did not allow U.S. complex financial instruments or peg its currency while it amassed a huge volume of U.S. dollars and treasuries, and it has a robust internal economy that will continue to expand, albeit somewhat more slowly. That will be enough to ensure the depletion rate continues only marginally slower.
The result will be a bankrupt world with huge social dislocation and upheaval that is reliant on new economic leaders who will allocate energy any way they see fit. Time for some heavy-duty diplomacy!
Posted by icurhuman2 at 10/10/2008 @ 8:14pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 6:34pm
That's about the fifth or sixth reference to Goldberg's book from SJCHER....he must cling to it like a Bible since he can claim "And THIS from a member of the Liberal Media!!!!"
BTW, "that woman" was NY Times movie critic Pauline Kael.
Did you actually READ "Bias"!?!??!???!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/10/2008 @ 8:52pm
This woman in the example did not associate with people other than those of the same ideology as her, and her perspective was framed by that.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 6:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Wow SJerk, that woman sounds just like you.
I on the other hand associated with friends and relatives from very far, far right, to fairly far left...and everything in between.
None actually believed we had to win in Vietnam or the communists were going to take over America.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 9:22pm
Oh and Sjerk...
...since you brought up the subject of speaking for "most people", let's review who it was who tried to do that first, shall we...
.
Yes, some leftists back then thought communism was A-OK, but **most people** saw it as a threat to our very existence.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 9:24pm
See Sjerk, if you lack the forsight to be well-read and actually seek out and read diverse information BEFORE you make up your mind on something (see, I said IF just like you did) then you'd end up just quoting from the same right-wing authors, right-wing talk show hosts, and right-wing websites all the time.
I learned that from actually reading a very WIDE variety of information from a very WIDE variety of sources, and associating with a very WIDE variety of people holding a very WIDE variety of opinions as I grew up. The experience taught me how to keep my eyes, ears, and MIND open until I actually had enough information from all sides to arrive at my OWN conclusions.
Posted by Lillian at 10/10/2008 @ 9:35pm
Being a nonsuperpower is ok.
But the fun really starts when we can go back to lootin' and pillaging!
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/10/2008 @ 10:29pm
the Afghan debacle was the stick that finally knocked down a already rotten structure. And the same can probably be predicted for the US
Posted by emile duBois at 10/11/2008 @ 10:16am
Lillian,
I am not impressed with how intelligent you think you are.
Let us review how this discussion got started.
1. Comments by a blogger were made comparing the Soviets in Afghanistan with the U.S. in Vietnam, in a thread started by an article by Tom Engelhardt, in which he seems to yearn and welcome a hoped for decline in American influence and power.
2. Communism is now and always has been wrong. Do you comprehend this or not?
3. The Soviets were in Afghanistan to spread communism, and they attempted to spread the communism n many other areas of the world as well. That was wrong. Do you comprehend this or not?
4. The U.S. was in Vietnam to stop communism. Communists had no business invading South Vietnam. Communist efforts to do so were wrong. Do you comprehend this or not?
5. Unfortunately, Vietnam turned into a national tragedy for the U.S. because the war drug on and on, it was not appropriate to just leave and let the communists do whatever they wanted, but also it was feared that a massive attempt to end the war quickly would escalate things to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviets. We were in a catch-22 situation, started by communist intervention in South Vietnam. In short, Vietnam was the communists fault. Do you comprehend this or not?
6. At the time of Vietnam, we were in the cold war with the Soviets where the Soviet goal was world domination, with various leaders going all the way back to Lenin on the public record as having said so. This is not a matter of dispute. Do you comprehend this or not?
7. Despite the facts of item 6, modern leftists have re-written history to declare the Soviets were not a threat. Do you admit this has happened, or not?
I will have to continue in a second post
Posted by sjchermak at 10/11/2008 @ 2:36pm
8. As a result of what I said above, there is no comparison between Soviets in Afghanistan and the U.S. in Vietnam. Do you comprehend this, or not?
9. There are patriotic Americans who believe and still do that their country is the best force for good that has existed in human history, who believe our involvement in Vietnam was a mistake. But then there are others who point to our involvement in Vietnam as yet another in a list in their view of American wrongs. The blogger who I started this off by responding to very clearly sees it in that light. Those individuals are clearly not patriotic Americans, they are individuals who wish it to be something else altogether, usually they wish for a socialist or communistic country who is subservient, and meek, and obeys the will of other countries. Can you comprehend the difference, or not?
10. A considerable number of bloggers on this website tend to fall into the second category. They are not patriotic Americans who happen to be Democrats. They are hard lefties who subscribe to a worldview promoted by people such as Howard Zinn. Based on the commentary you offer, you likely fit into that category yourself. Do you comprehend this, or not, or can you prove otherwise?
11. I am supposed to be impressed by all your knowledge and all your review of whatever prior to you arriving at your ideology. However, despite whatever has led you to your ideological station in life, you need to understand that you are wrong. Do you understand, or not?
12. No matter how civil I or another conservative tries to be in our discourse, angry leftists such as you eventually resort to crap like calling me "Sjerk" or whatever, as you express your disgust and disdain for us. Do you comprehend, that we think the same of you?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/11/2008 @ 2:48pm
SJCHER....
do you buy any products made in Communist China?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/11/2008 @ 3:49pm
i don't get this right-left thing. plenty of right-wing conservatives oppose foreign intervention aka war. the dem ( supposedly 'left') Congress and Senate backed the war to the hilt, both Vietnam and the current mess. Biden likes the War on ( some ) Drugs, W.F. Buckley was against it. the mainstream pols that are really for change are few, dumped on the sidelines. they do not include the current distractions. it seems the answers no longer lie within the old dichotomy.
Posted by velveeta at 10/11/2008 @ 7:24pm
No matter how civil I or another conservative tries to be in our discourse, angry leftists such as you eventually resort to crap like calling me "Sjerk" or whatever, as you express your disgust and disdain for us. Do you comprehend, that we think the same of you?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/11/2008 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
I was consdiering responding, pint by point. But to what end?
This was the ONLY one that really requires a response.
See SJerk, you HAVEN'T been civil. Starting a post with faux-friendly "Hi <whoever>" then proceeding to post about what people on the left think and why they are idiots who just can't comprehend doesn't make you 'civil'.
See SJerk, you just spendt 12 'points' implying that, if I don't agree with you, then I don't 'comprehend'. Do you comprehend this, or not?
I've been blogging here for several YEARS SJerk, and I certainly noticed when you showed up. I noticed because your derision and distain was palpable.
I noticed because you NEVER offered anything in the way of defendable fact, with cited authority. And now do so only rarely and the few links you provide are to right wing hate radio jocks, wing-nut op-ed pieces and the like.
I noticed because you love to post is your opinion, and you've made quite clear that your opinion of anyone who disagrees with you is pretty damned low.
I noticed because you seem to like to come here after your daily dose of Limbaugh and sling 'you libs' this and 'you lefties' that, like the terms are epithets.
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 01:51am
I have had many civil conversations with people on these blogs with whom I generally disagree. Thrawn is a perfect example. LRJones is another.
I could have had the same with you SJerk, but that's clearly NOT why you are here. If it was, you wouldn't have started off being so condescending and obnoxious.
Pretending you are civil doesn't actually make you so. If you were actually civil...
...I wouldn't be calling you the SJerk that you are acting like.
Do you comprehend this, or not?
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 01:56am
Hello LoonyLillian,
Regarding your last post
".....Do you comprehend this, or not?
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 01:56am....."
I comprehend loud and clear that you are an obnoxious, arrogant, elitist leftist who is intoxicated with her ideology and her opinion of herself.
That is wonderful that you have been blogging here for several years. I do not remember the exact demeanor I engaged in when I first blogged here but I remember many posts where I discussed my logic and opinion without being obnoxious.
You made the following comment:
"I noticed because you NEVER offered anything in the way of defendable fact, with cited authority. And now do so only rarely and the few links you provide are to right wing hate radio jocks, wing-nut op-ed pieces and the like. "
That, of course, is only your opinion, regarding how defendable my points were.
All the leftist postings here that are utter B.S. seem to escape your scrutiny and judgment.
You make opinionated qualifications about my sources ("hate radio") and you portray that I am just regurgitating talking points, but clearly you just recycle all the same leftist themes yourself, and act in the same manner other leftists such as Maskdelta, i'm nobody, etc act.
The difference between the left and the right on these blogs is that the conservatives stick to the issues. Half of the time leftists such as yourself act as self-appointed policepeople, judging the quality of and accuracy of and supportablity of conservative postings, and showing your elitist contempt for those you consider lower that you at your lofty station of knowledge.
I think that's because you and other leftists can't defend your liberalism, so you try to limit and police discourse instead, both here and elsewhere.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 12:10pm
Just to finish up what I was saying, you and others on these blogs behave the same as general leftist behavior outside these blogs.
The left wants to bring back the "fairness doctrine" which the left really hopes will "hush Rush", while at the same time the left enjoys a very biased mainstream media. The left wants public media to be stacked in it's favor.
The left goes berserk at the mention of Fox News, because that is the one media outlet that doesn't lean left. The left can not stand anything other than news from a leftist perspective.
A venue where the left has been successful in enforcing speech control is on college campuses. Political life can be difficult for a conservative there, because conservatives can be accused of "hate speech" if they say things that leftists do not want to hear.
As I have mentioned before, I have seen letters to the editor in my local paper where a liberal will demand the paper discontinue a conservative columnist, rather than just take issue with what the columnist says.
I guess your behavior, LoonyLillian, on these blogs makes sense to me, because it is typical leftist behavior. You want to control thought and speech, and this is in the same vein as how leftists want more government control of all people's lives anyway.
You want to control things and have them be to your specifications, you can not comprehend or stand a society where all people have a say, and where sometimes the say is not something you agree with.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 12:18pm
"The difference between the left and the right on these blogs is that the conservatives stick to the issues. Half of the time leftists such as yourself act as self-appointed policepeople, judging the quality of and accuracy of and supportablity of conservative postings,..."
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Stick to the issues....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Judging the quality and accuracy.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!....of your postings...HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
SJerk, you never even POSTED citings with your rants until AFTER I started calling you on it. Don't you remember? I do. Your first citing to back you Bs up...
...was RUSH LIMBAUGH!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 12:55pm
The left wants to bring back the "fairness doctrine" which the left really hopes will "hush Rush", while at the same time the left enjoys a very biased mainstream media. The left wants public media to be stacked in it's favor.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
So SJerk, you're going to 'finish' with more of your absolute delusional fantasies? With no citing of objective research or anything approaching 'fact'...just your looney opinions.
How appropriate.
If you ever find ANYTHING like intellectual curiosity about the subject (you know, as opposed to just swallowing the wing-nut koolaide) try looking here...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://tinyurl.com/3kkofj
http://tinyurl.com/3ouwgs
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
http://tinyurl.com/3mkcvd
http://tinyurl.com/3wkfhe
BTW, nobody has EVER suggested that you should NOT say whatever you want. (That delusional fantasy actually borders on the bizzarre.)
On the contrary SJerk, keep posting...by all means...the more you post your lame regrugitation of Rush and the wing-nut sites you visit...
...the more everyone else around here realizes what and SJerk you are!
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 1:12pm
Greetings and salutations, Lillian:
You continue to make my point for me! Thanks!
It fascinates me that you say I did not provide "citings" with my "rants" in my earlier posts.
What did people do before there were computers and the Internet? If two people were arguing about politics, were they supposed to carry with them encyclopedias and transcripts of all written discourse by others in the public domain, in order to provide the required "citings" on the spot?!
People can not argue with opinion and logic without having to provide "citings", which oftentimes are usually nothing more than what somebody else believes?
Then you turn around and laugh at how Rush Limbaugh was my first "citing".
No discussion from you as to why Rush is an invalid source, nor why what he says and the information he provides is wrong!
But you keep going... after that you provide links that I am supposed to look up, including one to an article here on "The Nation" by Eric Alterman
In it, he says that Bernard Goldberg has strung together extreme charges, but I note that Mr. Alterman does not even attempt to refute them!
You are just posting links to lib opinion, which I take with a grain of salt just like you dismiss links to conservatives.
But the difference is that you on the left are the ones who raise these questions of the validity of "links" and "citings" and require them in the first place, again as I said to mask the fact that you can't defend your beliefs.
The hilarious part is when you challenge my intellectual curiosity and say I should check out leftist articles.... you fail to see that I am checking out what is on The Nation, by myself, and not because of instruction by you.
You are so hyper-intellectual you don't see the forest because the trees are in the way!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 3:18pm
"Greetings and salutations, Lillian:
You continue to make my point for me! Thanks!
It fascinates me that you say I did not provide "citings" with my "rants" in my earlier posts."
What did people do before there were computers and the Internet? If two people were arguing about politics, were they supposed to carry with them encyclopedias and transcripts of all written discourse by others in the public domain, in order to provide the required "citings" on the spot?!"
People were less informed then. Like you are now.
"People can not argue with opinion and logic without having to provide "citings", which oftentimes are usually nothing more than what somebody else believes?"
'Oftentimes' usually turns out to be you spouting rush or hannity's opinons. Most of the rest is people refuting you with the findings of actual scientists, generals and non-partisan sources, like the red cross.
"Then you turn around and laugh at how Rush Limbaugh was my first "citing"."
And this is odd or irrational behavior, in what way?
"No discussion from you as to why Rush is an invalid source, nor why what he says and the information he provides is wrong!"
Is this part a joke? Can I cite Al Franken or Tina Fey as authorative sources now?
"But you keep going... after that you provide links that I am supposed to look up, including one to an article here on "The Nation" by Eric Alterman"
Seriously, why would you want to read what others who've reached other conclusions, have read? Why would you want to broaden your viewpoint or threaten your comforting dogmas?
cont
Posted by Malcontent at 10/12/2008 @ 4:16pm
"In it, he says that Bernard Goldberg has strung together extreme charges, but I note that Mr. Alterman does not even attempt to refute them!"
True. I thought that was the reason he provided quotes from those unrepentant leftists, like Patrick Buchanan;
"I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that,"
And leftist William Kristol;
"I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
"You are just posting links to lib opinion, which I take with a grain of salt just like you dismiss links to conservatives.
But the difference is that you on the left are the ones who raise these questions of the validity of "links" and "citings" and require them in the first place, again as I said to mask the fact that you can't defend your beliefs."
One is supposed to defend ones beleifs in a factual vacuum? That's called faith. Useful in religion. Not so much in the real world of politics.
"The hilarious part is when you challenge my intellectual curiosity and say I should check out leftist articles.... you fail to see that I am checking out what is on The Nation, by myself, and not because of instruction by you."
That is pretty frikkin hilarious. Like you poses any intelectual curiosity. It is the same lacking of curiousity, that you share with your dear leader.
cont
Posted by Malcontent at 10/12/2008 @ 4:19pm
"You are so hyper-intellectual you don't see the forest because the trees are in the way!"
I dunno about the 'hyper' part, but I sense a whole lot of intellectual curiousty on lillians part. Please explain how a healthy intellect and an abundance of facts, has a blinding effect. (With citation, please) ;o)
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 3:18pm
Posted by Malcontent at 10/12/2008 @ 4:21pm
Truthiness
Posted by Malcontent at 10/12/2008 @ 4:23pm
Malcontent (note I didn't say hello, Lillian says it is wrong to do that!)
The only reason you sense intellectual curiosity on Lillian's part is because you agree with her.
I can not speak, nor would I try, towards what she reads and looks at and reviews prior to her coming to the opinions she has.
But I can speak to the continual declaration by you and her and other leftists as to how I arrive at my opinions. You automatically determine I am not intellectually curious and I am only a puppet of Rush Limbaugh.
Can you prove this? No. You just assume it, based on my opinions.
How do you know what I have or haven't read? My presence in these blogs and awareness of what idiots like Howard Zinn have said ought to indicate I do read leftists. You think you would see that, but you are blind to that.
I have read books about Robert F. Kennedy by Arthur Schlesinger, and books about Lyndon B. Johnson. I have read books BY Jimmy Carter, John F. Kerry, and Mario Cuomo.
I have read the Scott McClellan book. I can refute the main conclusions of his book, conclusions that are feted and celebrated by leftists.
You leftists assume too much about me.
I used to be a reliable Democrat voter. Three things changed this.
1. Lib crucification of Clarence Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearings.
2. Seeing Slick Willie speak in person in 1995. I feel the need to vomit, thinking back on that.
3. Easy availability of lib magazines and columnists on the Internet - which meant I was reading stuff I had not sought out before. What I saw (the lib demeanor) made me think about what is going on, and what the facts/truth really are, and turned me against Liberalism.
Thus it is you libs, acting just as you act now, that made me the Conservative I am today!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 6:02pm
Malcontent,
You want to know that if I can cite Rush Limbaugh, can you cite Al Franken?
Sure, cite Al Franken all you want!
One thing, though, you can not prove Rush wrong and you can not prove Al Franken right. I already know that, you do not.
But go ahead and try anyway, if you want.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 6:05pm
Malcontent (note I didn't say hello, Lillian says it is wrong to do that!)
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
You see SJerk, you just provided a perfect example of why we ask you to provide the sources. I contend right here, right now, that you just make stuff up. This is a perfect example, unless you can now show us all now, your 'source'...
...where Lillian said saying "hello" was "wrong".
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 6:36pm
How do you know what I have or haven't read?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 6:02pm
I only know what you tell me. And that seems to be the same few books over and over.
Wasn't the whole beginning of this argument about you refusing to cite your sources? And mocking those who appear better read than you?
What does either hating or loving Clinton have to do with Obama vs Mccain? Or 2008 in general, for that matter?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 6:05pm
Traditionally, sarcasm is not meant to be taken as a challenge.
I would no sooner get my facts from Franken or Fey, than Limbaugh or Hannity.
If those folks appear to be valid sources to you, that I think you've missed the point of almost every post addressed to you.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/12/2008 @ 6:43pm
But you keep going... after that you provide links that I am supposed to look up, including one to an article here on "The Nation" by Eric Alterman
In it, he says that Bernard Goldberg has strung together extreme charges, but I note that Mr. Alterman does not even attempt to refute them!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Admit it SJerk, you never so much as looked...even briefly...at any of the articles I posted. I provided links to a VARIETY of articles from a VARIETY of sources.
How do I know you never read them? It s obvious...the link I provided to Eric Altman's article was specifically about media bias and the myth of the liberal media. It was published in The Nation in 2003...and NEVER ONCE mentioned Bernard Goldberg!
Here's an except...
"In a careful 1999 study published in the academic journal Communications Research, four scholars examined the use of the "liberal media" argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view. "
Note Altman's use of actual research, with citations. Contrast trhat with your moronic 'I know because I know'tripe.
Like I said SJerk, by all means, keep posting. The more you post, the more pathetic you look.
Although seriously, I might have to take a break...
...laughing at your lameness is beginning to make my side ache!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 6:52pm
Alterman...Eric Alterman.
Man, laughing so hard it messed up my typing!
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 6:53pm
One thing, though, you can not prove Rush wrong and you can not prove Al Franken right. I already know that, you do not.
But go ahead and try anyway, if you want.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Try readin Al Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". He nails Limbaugh over and over and over.
Here are a few others not in the book...
In 1991, Limbaugh claimed that Styrofoam was biodegradable and paper wasn't.
In his book, See, I Told You So, Limbaugh wrote, "There are more acres of forest land in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492.
Rush says that "The Sierra Club wants to limit the number of kids you can have to two".
Rush states that Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released more than a thousand times the amount of ozone depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by all the corporations in history. He goes on to conclude that since the Earth's ozone layer survives all these eruptions over billions of years that we could not possibly destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.
The problem with this theory is that his entire premise is wrong. NASA has been studying the upper atmospheric chemicals that lead to ozone depletion. They have taken samples of the air in the upper atmosphere and concluded that the ozone depleting chemicals found in the upper atmosphere are NOT the same as those that come from volcanoes. They are the CFCs produced commercially by man.
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:15pm
Rush criticizes environmentalists by saying: "We have more trees in this country today than when the Declaration of Independence was written.
World Almanac and the U.S. Statistical Abstracts, forests covered 850 million acres in the late 1700s. By 1992, forests covered 730 million acres. So Rush is only off by a hundred and twenty million acres or so, which is quite accurate for him.
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:16pm
In Chapter 16 of "The Way Things Ought To Be" Rush talked about how Willie Horton brutally raped a woman after he was allowed out of a Massachusetts prison on a furlough program while Michael Dukakis was governor. Rush, of course, refers to this as the "Dukakis furlough program" and blames Dukakis for the whole affair.
What Rush failed to mention was that the furlough law he is talking about was passed when Dukakis was not even governor of Massachusetts. It was signed into law by the REPUBLICAN governor who preceded Dukakis. Dukakis' biggest involvement with that law was that he repealed it.
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:17pm
Rush said this about the media, "How about the myth of heterosexual AIDS? Despite endless predictions of an epidemic, it has not happened, yet each year we are hit by The Media with alarming new predictions."
Well once again the facts show Rush is wrong. All statistics show that the percentage of heterosexual victims of AIDS is growing. And in most of the countries where AIDS is in epidemic proportion (Haiti, as well as several African nations) the vast majority of victims are heterosexual.
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:18pm
Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth" (Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20-to-1.
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:21pm
Limbaugh: "All of these rich guys--like the Kennedy family and Perot--pretending to live just like ***we*** do and pretending to understand our trials and tribulations and pretending to represent us, and they get away with this" (TV, Nov. 18, 1993).
Versus Limbaugh: Limbaugh's income was an estimated $25 million over the last two years (Forbes, Sept. 26, 1994).
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:22pm
Lillian at 6:52 pm today:
Admit it SJerk, you never so much as looked...even briefly...at any of the articles I posted. I provided links to a VARIETY of articles from a VARIETY of sources.
How do I know you never read them? It s obvious...the link I provided to Eric Altman's article was specifically about media bias and the myth of the liberal media. It was published in The Nation in 2003...and NEVER ONCE mentioned Bernard Goldberg!
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 6:52pm =========================
.....versus excerpt from article Lillian recommended with "no mention" of Bernard Goldberg:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2
Books by both Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg have topped the bestseller lists, stringing together a series of charges so extreme that, well, it's amazing neither one thought to accuse "liberals" of using the blood of conservatives' children for extra flavor in their soy-milk decaf lattes.
============================
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 7:24pm
Seriously SJerk, have you ever once actually investigated ANYTHING Rush has told you?
You just swallow it- hook, line, sinker...
...rod, reel, boat, AND anchor?!?!
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:25pm
============================ ......Lillian at 6:36 pm on Oct 12
I contend right here, right now, that you just make stuff up. This is a perfect example, unless you can now show us all now, your 'source'...
...where Lillian said saying "hello" was "wrong".
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 6:36pm
===================== .........versus Lillian at 1:51 am that same day
See SJerk, you HAVEN'T been civil. Starting a post with faux-friendly "Hi <whoever>"
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 01:51am
(If you parse the exact words Lillian did not say saying hello was wrong... that is how I referred to it in a later post.... it is obvious, however, what Lillian meant... more lib "refereeing" of how people talk rather than concentrating on the issues... the style in which I began my posts was deemed by Lillian to be "faux-friendly"
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 7:27pm
Lillian,
The Willie Horton- Dukakis situation was not as you described it above. You glossed over some things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was the governor of Massachusetts at the time of Horton's release, and while he did not start the furlough program, he had supported it as a method of criminal rehabilitation. The State inmate furlough program was actually signed into law by Republican Governor Francis W. Sargent in 1972. However, under Governor Sargent, convicted first-degree murderers were not eligible for furlough. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that this right extended to first-degree murderers, the Massachusetts legislature quickly passed a bill prohibiting furloughs for such inmates. However, in 1976, Dukakis vetoed this bill. The program remained in effect through the intervening term of governor Edward J. King and was abolished during Dukakis' final term of office on April 28, 1988. This abolition only occurred after the Lawrence Eagle Tribune had run 175 stories about the furlough program and won a Pulitzer Prize. Dukakis continued to argue that the program was 99 percent effective; yet, as the Lawrence Eagle Tribune pointed out, no state outside of Massachusetts, nor any federal program, would grant a furlough to a prisoner serving life without parole.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 7:31pm
In it, he says that Bernard Goldberg has strung together extreme charges, but I note that Mr. Alterman does not even attempt to refute them!
Posted by sjchermak at 10/12/2008 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2
Books by both Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg have topped the bestseller lists, stringing together a series of charges so extreme that, well, it's amazing neither one thought to accuse "liberals" of using the blood of conservatives' children for extra flavor in their soy-milk decaf lattes.
.
Books by Ann Coulter - Treason, Slander, High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Books by Bernard Goldberg - Crazies to the Left of Me...How one Side Lost it's mind...", Liberal Facisim, Arrogance
.
See SJerk, you read that tripe without any attempt to balance it with something of the opposite view, then regurgitate it here thinking it's gospel. Your mind is closed as tightly as a frogs anus under water. If it wasn't, you'd have noticed the OTHER 4 pages of Alterman's article...
...actually refuted your cherished little myth of 'liberal media bias'...
...and he refered to lots of places you check the facts for yourself! (If hell freezes over and you actually get an inclination to do something like that.)
Posted by Lillian at 10/12/2008 @ 7:42pm
Lillian,
You can relax now, and go find something else to do!
Up above, I have documented where you did not know what your own article contained.
You said an article you recommended contained no mention of Bernard Goldberg...and implied this was evidence I never read the article since I quoted a comment from the article about Bernard Goldberg.....
....and then I pasted an excerpt from the article that mentioned Bernard Goldberg. (which, of course, is why I cited it in the first place)
At that point, it was over! Your credibility was completely wiped away, by your own words.
But rather than stopping there, I went ahead and pasted some information about the Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis situation that showed you distorted things there.
Now, you are plugging away with more, in an effort and hope to blow past where you contradicted yourself.
I am not buying the tactic. You have lost this little back and forth. You set yourself up, and contradicted yourself all by yourself. Maybe you were too eager, and overreached once too often. I was certainly glad to point this out for you.
It is over. I win, you lose. Go find something else more productive to do.
Posted by sjchermak at 1