bad news on the doorstep.......

On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, William Asher wrote:


Crosby is a drug-addled doofus whose best years were 4 decades ago. Why
anyone would listen to anything he says and think it has any relevance to
reality is beyond me. Someone I know commented that "Crosby has more than
a few loose solder joints."

--
Bill Asher

It's my prejudice, but I think the left, in general, for publication,
has learned what to say. In private conversations, and with a lot of
the people here in Happy Valley, and in the blogs Crosby's attitude
seem to be typical. Same as it was, same as it always will be. A lot
of the returning vets still talk about being harrassed at the local
universities, both from the other students and faculty, even though,
for publication, they all say We support the troops, but not the war".
I Don't buy it anymore than Nixon's "I am not a crook", but like I
said that's due to personal experience, cynicism, and general
hostility on my part.
What really ****ed me off is that NOONE questioned his statements at
either outlet. You can bet your ass they would've questioned Coulter
or any right wing nutcase.
Bill C

On Oct 23, 4:07 pm, Bill C wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, William Asher wrote:



Crosby is a drug-addled doofus whose best years were 4 decades ago. Why
anyone would listen to anything he says and think it has any relevance to
reality is beyond me. Someone I know commented that "Crosby has more than
a few loose solder joints."

--
Bill Asher

It's my prejudice, but I think the left, in general, for publication,
has learned what to say. In private conversations, and with a lot of
the people here in Happy Valley, and in the blogs Crosby's attitude
seem to be typical. Same as it was, same as it always will be. A lot
of the returning vets still talk about being harrassed at the local
universities,



Dumbass -


You've got your head up your ass.

Some of the people who are most sympathetic to the troops are the ones
most against the war. The troops (along w/ the Iraqis) are the ones
who are getting screwed the most.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Oct 23, 4:07 pm, Bill C wrote:

What really ****ed me off is that NOONE questioned his statements at
either outlet. You can bet your ass they would've questioned Coulter
or any right wing nutcase.

Like they questioned Coulter for saying Jews needed to be perfected?

If you want to get your shorts in an uproar about something that
hasn't been getting enough media attention, read this:
http://www.psychsound.com/2007/10/a_...ns_or_how.html

In article .com,
wrote:

On Oct 23, 4:07 pm, Bill C wrote:

What really ****ed me off is that NOONE questioned his statements at
either outlet. You can bet your ass they would've questioned Coulter
or any right wing nutcase.

Like they questioned Coulter for saying Jews needed to be perfected?

If you want to get your shorts in an uproar about something that
hasn't been getting enough media attention, read this:
http://www.psychsound.com/2007/10/a_...ns_or_how.html

Add this: http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001799.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article . com,
Bill C wrote:

What I see is them being able to increasingly destabilize the
countries in the M.E. Not as Howard says, because of Iraq, which is
adding to their recruiting, but has also allowed us to kill a lot of
their best people and connections, but the fact that while a few are
incredibly rich based on the oil, most are dirt poor and screwed by
their leaders who are taking their resources for personal gain. The
other thing they see their leaders as doing, is selling out their
honor to the west for profit.

Yeah, there have been many of the "best people" killed in Iraq but many more have
learned and practiced what they need to do and taken that knowledge elsewhere. The
added recruiting because of Iraq has to be a huge plus for the Islamists. I agree
that many of the people at the bottom of the totem pole in the oil-rich Middle
Eastern countries are being screwed by their leaders, but at the same time, some of
those leaders are funding the Islamist while doing enough to keep them from knocking
them (the leaders) off.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article .com,
Bill C wrote:

On Oct 23, 12:47 am, Howard Kveck wrote:

bunch snipped

It will be a little slice of heaven when Hillary is elected and you
all get to live under your own great choice. I'll be able to laugh at
all of you before the jackbooted blackshirts kick in my door and haul
me off to a reeducation camp which would plainly meet the Democrat's
approval.

Heh. Paranoic, rabid ramblings.

Change Hillary to Bush, and democrat to Republican and it looks like
it was snipped from one of the leftist blogs.

Not that much "sent to a camp" stuff on the left. There is a lot of talk about the
Bush admin. invading citizens' privacy (which seems to be heading toward a
justifiable fear in light of the telecoms handing over customer records without
warrants only weeks after the admin. took charge in '01).

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article . com,
Bill C wrote:

On Oct 23, 12:47 am, Howard Kveck wrote:
bunch snipped

The problem with going to those tactics is that it doesn't seem to
change the dynamic enough. The population still supports the insurgents and
is willing to accept the casualties. They may have setbacks but, in time,
they will prevail.

Serious question Howard.
What's the plan from the left? If we can't fight them because that
just makes more of them. That seemed to work pretty well in WW 1 and
2. Which we'd have lost, or still be fighting/negotiating, because
fighting them doesn't work, right??

Well, I think that it's kind of a inapt comparison to hold up WW I & II to the
situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. In both of the latter cases, we're seen by the
majority of the populace as the aggressor. As for what the left's plan is: I can't
speak for "the left", just myself. The fact that I see serious flaws in how this has
been approached doesn't mean I can come up with a plan to sort it out, especially at
this stage of the ****ed up game.

If you are citing the active support for the active combatants by the
civilians, why aren't they legitimate targets, just as our supply
centers, bases, factories , convoys, etc...are considered to be?
What is actually bad enough to fight the organization as a whole in
your mind? Is there anything?
I say that we've been following the approach you, and the rest of the
left advocate with Tibet, and Sudan. In one the culture is being
exterminated, and in less than a century, for all intents and
purposes, "Tibet" will cease to exist,

What do you think we should do in Tibet? Attack China? What real leverage do we
have over China in that situation, in terms of negotiating?

and in the other [Sudan] hundreds of
thousands are being slaughtered, tortured, raped, kids are being
forced to soldier, or are choosing to do it. Is it better to let it go
on indefinitely rather than to totally crush, and kill the people
supporting and driving this genocide? I'd trade the possible million
dead up front to totally remove the people responsible for doing and
supporting this, including those "civilians". For some reason there
seems to be the idea that the people, no matter how evil they are,
feeding clothing, housing, carrying/hiding supplies for, providing
intelligence for, etc... those making the bombs and committing the
atrocities are blameless victims who need to be appeased, fed
sheltered, and protected no matter what they did. And the worst war
criminal becomes on of thoise people, to those on the left, as soon as
they, and I'm not saying he because some of the women are just as bad,
put down their rifle or RPG.

Well, people on the left have hardly been saying "do nothing in Sudan" - far from
it.

We're still hunting down kids who, at the end of the war were pressed
into SS service against the Soviets who were executing whole villages,
as criminals, and kiscking them out of western countries, but Arafat
got a peace prize, and Gueverra and Castro are heroes.
This all goes with the spin that Islamic attacks are a Bush legacy,
and something totally new since Afghanistan and Iraq that a lot of
those on the left are spinning today. Anyone with a tiny knowledge of
history knbows that's BS.
From the Crusades, on to Napoleon and the Brits in the M.E. there was
fighting, ambushes, and massacres. Most of which happened before Bush
was born.

Oh, there's as much sense of the history of that among liberals as there is among
conservatives. Sure, some people say that all started recently but there's people on
the right claiming it all started while Clinton was in charge.

How is it that the left ignores the died in the wool, brutal ties,
not just to the Nazis, but in formulating the final solution, by the
Pan-Arabs and turns out on campuses to support them, while raving
about the Bush families business connections to the early Nazis?

I'm not sure I've seen or heard anyone turning out on any campuses out this way to
support the Arabs. Yeah, there's support for Palestinians and bashing of Israel and
some of that is misguided, but there's just as much misguided support for Israel and
bashing of the Palestinians coming the other way.

What's your personal take on this stuff.
I might be misreading you, but you seem convinced that they aren't
any big deal, or long term threat, and are misunderstood, but have
ranted about Joe Leiberman and anyone to his right.

I recognize the dangers in that area and I don't underestimate it. My point is
that there are people like Romney and Giuliani who are seriously overhyping it and
using that hyoe to stir up voters. They're saying, "I'll kick the most Islamic ass!"
I bash Leiberman because he's a huge enabler of Bush and another guy who seriously
overhypes the situation in the Middle East. I bash him for wanting us to be in an
endless war with Iraq, Iran and Syria, essentially as proxies for Israel. Bill, you
know that we had a great chance to work *with* Iran right after 9-11 and the nutcases
in the White House blew it and set about stirring them up.

I'm pretty cranky with having been sick, but David Crosby breaking
out the "baby killers" blast, again, and noone at either CNN, or NBC
even questioning it has really ****ed me off.

Who knows why they put him on? Crosby's statements are not representative of the
overwhelming majority of liberal views. Nowhere on the sites I travel is there any
talk like that. It's like the way the right (with a huge assist from the media) made
Ward Churchill the apparent spokesman for all of the left after 9-11, even though no
one had even heard of him or (more to the point) agreed with the stupid things he
said.

Seems to me there's massively more support for Islamic terrorists
among the left here than for our troops.

I absolutely disagree with that.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Oct 23, 4:07 pm, Bill C wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, William Asher wrote:



Crosby is a drug-addled doofus whose best years were 4 decades ago.

He virtually tapped Melissa Etheridge, or whatever her name is. How
many men can say that about a lesbian?

It's my prejudice, but I think the left, in general, for publication,
has learned what to say.

So you're saying that coming off like retards is intentional?

"I meant to fall down the stairs." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

On Oct 23, 10:39 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

The fact that I see serious flaws in how this has been approached
doesn't mean I can come up with a plan to sort it out, especially at
this stage of the ****ed up game.

A key difference between you and a politician is you actually admit
you have no idea. I reckon that is where the difference ends.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
He virtually tapped Melissa Etheridge, or whatever her name is. How
many men can say that about a lesbian?

I think I may have helped one decide. She is now married!

To a woman.


--
R. Geller