Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Mar 25, 12:20*am, Howard Kveck 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 ****
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

"Paul G." wrote in message
...

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.

"Paul G." wrote in message
...

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?

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. 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

On Mar 25, 8:43 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Paul G." wrote in message

...



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?

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

On Mar 25, 3:26 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
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

In article , "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

"Paul G." wrote in message
...

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?

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Mar 25, 12:20?am, Howard Kveck 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 **** 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.b...00471f93d30185


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 ****ed up ****." 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?

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Mar 25, 12:20*am, Howard Kveck 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 ****, 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 ****.

*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 **** 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 ****! 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-...e_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.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mar 26, 2:36*am, Howard Kveck 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 ****! 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-...nister-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.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 -

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 ****, IMO because they are about
telling the majority of America hoiw much they all suck, and what a
bunch of bigotted, fascist ****, corporate slaves they are. Not going
to do much for your bottom line or popularity.
People don't want to be treated like ****, and told they are ****.
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 **** 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