Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Mar 26, 8:31 am, Bill C wrote:
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 -


"If the Revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments
whenever necessary, it will stop still less from laying its hand on
any tendency in art which, no matter how great its achievement in
form, threatens to disintegrate the revolutionary environment or to
arouse the internal forces of the Revolution, that is, the
proletariat, the peasantry and the intelligentsia, to a hostile
opposition to one another. Our standard is, clearly, political,
imperative and intolerant."
Leon Trotsky quote

"In a serious struggle there is no worse cruelty than to be
magnanimous at an inopportune time."
Leon Trotsky quote

"The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx attached to this
concept, means a revolution which makes no compromise with any single
form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, which
goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from
without; that is, a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted
in the preceding one and which can end only in complete liquidation."
Leon Trotsky quote

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which
particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent
and repress them."
Karl Marx quote

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to
socialism."
Karl Marx quote

Bill C

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


I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.

Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on the
pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker with no real
fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up, especially government
related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey were lefties, correct? As
must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around the country or the cyanide bombers
in Texas (for a few examples).



--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html

Report Cites Increase in Attacks on Military Recruiting Centers
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Shattered windows and bomb scares are growing threats for recruiters
working to find young men and women to join the U.S. military,
according to a new report that claims attacks on military recruiting
stations are on the rise.

The report, issued by a not-for-profit group that supports members of
the military, calls the incidents -- including the spray-painting of
graffiti -- "attacks," and claims there have been more than 50 since
March 2003.



http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Report

The 50 is overblown, but it's pretty clear that this is fairly common,
and many are fairly serious. Of course you will just dismiss it all
because you don't like the messenger.
You made the argument earlier that "Direct Actions" were
understandable, and justified when the people are disenfranchised, and
not represented by the State.
I can't think of a single situation where I would condone violence,
illegal actions, and violating others here in the US today. Everyone
has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups.
Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to be
murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.
Bill C

Paul G. wrote:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm a walking encyclopedia. By definition, the
people who advocated radical changes to the status quo were liberals-
Jesus, George Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, etc.

They were fought every step of the way by conservatives, who *by
definition* opposed change, respectively the Pharisees, Tories,
Confederates, and racists.

Your problem is that you have read a dictionary and become confused.

It's simple, really. Evil people are liberals. Good people are
conservatives.

But I bet you've already figured this out.

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Mar 26, 8:31 am, Bill C wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:36 am, Howard Kveck wrote:

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

"If the Revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments
whenever necessary, it will stop still less from laying its hand on
any tendency in art which, no matter how great its achievement in
form, threatens to disintegrate the revolutionary environment or to
arouse the internal forces of the Revolution, that is, the
proletariat, the peasantry and the intelligentsia, to a hostile
opposition to one another. Our standard is, clearly, political,
imperative and intolerant."
Leon Trotsky quote

"In a serious struggle there is no worse cruelty than to be
magnanimous at an inopportune time."
Leon Trotsky quote

"The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx attached to this
concept, means a revolution which makes no compromise with any single
form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, which
goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from
without; that is, a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted
in the preceding one and which can end only in complete liquidation."
Leon Trotsky quote

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which
particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent
and repress them."
Karl Marx quote

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to
socialism."
Karl Marx quote

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????

After you told me I was a Stalinist Maoist FARCer, I happened to hear a song by
the Stranglers called "No More Heroes" - that's where the lines are from, and why it
appealed to me at the time I attached it as a sig file. Did you actually think I was
favorably commenting on Trotsky?

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

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.

[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.

Once again we see a different picture though I do agree with some of
your comments.
The commenators from the right have more, and bigger air time because
they sell product.

Glen Beck (who still has a show) is the lowest rated person in his time zones in
all demographics. Tucker Carlson was in a similar situation for several years
(although he has lost his show, the network has things lined up for him to continue
to be on air in "other capacities"). Two examples off the top of my head.

It's a capitalist country, in spite of your wishes,

Right, I'm the Stalinist. Thanks for the reminder, I almost forgot.

and that's how it works. They make money for the people putting them
on the air, so they get time. Maddow, and her friends are just as
vicious and miserable, but don't sell ****, 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.

That's what you hear from her? I sure don't.

There was NO thread hijack. TK started a thread on liberal fascism,
everyone jumped into bashing him.

Yeah, because he was wrong, you know? His definition of facism is wrong (and it
appears you agree with it).

I only jumped in after an incident
of "liberals" attacking folks, showing NO respect, and violating their
right to freely practice their religion. They should've insisted on
assault charges for the paint that was thrown on them, at a minimum.

Bill, When I read you post that some assholes disrupted an Easter service, I'm
inclined to agree, but I know that, just as predictably as rain on a summer afternoon
in Florida, you'll make an additional comment like the ones about "heroes", MoveOn
and Obama. You can't help yourself.

Explain to me why I have SO little problem with so many other anti-
war folks? Because they aren't locked into the Reagan Rule, and aren't
willing to excuse/justify almost anything done by the left. Believe it
or not a lot of my friends here are activist types, ex-hippies,
etc...the difference being there is give and take in discussions with
them, not stonewalling and blanket defense.

Because I've seen the pattern a metric buttload of times, Bill, and I start to get
weary of it. Grotesque generalizations and smears like the one that got this ball
rolling.

I admit, as you do, to being WAY more stubborn and offensive with you
becuase you take the sanctity position for the left. You critically
evaluate the left the way Malkin and Coulter evaluate the right. Most
of the folks, left, or right don't do that.

You're saying I'm as bad as Malkin and Coulter? I find that to be absurd.

Youy keep trying to paint me as a right wing nutjob, maybe you really
do think that. I keep painting you as a working for, and protecting
the far left, because I do think that. I DON'T think you support a lot
of the stuff, but do think you feel you have to defend all of it.
That's the problem.

I've explained it befo you have certain pet things that get you wound up. i
don't happen to agree that they're as awful as you think, in many cases, but mainly I
happen to be interested in other things going on in the world. Sometimes that's
stuff that I might actually have some influence over, like things our govt. gets up
to and I might be able to demonstrate to a congress member that they should oppose
that activity, for example. I've explained it plenty of times befo my lack of
continual condemnation of the things you don't like does not constitute support or a
defense of it.

Your comments on the "surge" are exactly where the folks who aren't
military, or are anti-military get it wrong. This is why the vet's
from Vietnam got abused when they came home, and I'm NOT saying you
are anti-military I know better.
The "surge" has done exactly what it was supposed to do, or better.
It lowered the level of violence, and the political heat, to allow the
politicians a chance to deal with the political situation. The
military provided EXACTLY what it was supposed to. The fact that the
politicians have failed abjectly, again doesn't mean that the "surge"
hasn't worked.

The main goal, according to Petraeus, was to give the politicians time to work out
some details so they could achieve stability in the country. They have failed
miserably on that point. I'd say that you read my comments as suggesting that the
soldiers didn't do a good enough job - that is not what I said or suggested. As for
the reduction in violence, I think the insurgents took a breather to see exactly what
the tactics were going to be and they would respond to them in time. Which,
apparently, is now.

The politics are a seperate animal, and as I've said
before I'm not sure that the violence is down due to the "surge".
There're a bunch of other factors.
Bill C

--
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:


I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.

Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on
the pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker
with no real fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up,
especially government related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey
were lefties, correct? As must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around
the country or the cyanide bombers in Texas (for a few examples).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html

Report Cites Increase in Attacks on Military Recruiting Centers
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Shattered windows and bomb scares are growing threats for recruiters
working to find young men and women to join the U.S. military,
according to a new report that claims attacks on military recruiting
stations are on the rise.

The report, issued by a not-for-profit group that supports members of
the military, calls the incidents -- including the spray-painting of
graffiti -- "attacks," and claims there have been more than 50 since
March 2003.

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Report

The 50 is overblown, but it's pretty clear that this is fairly common,
and many are fairly serious. Of course you will just dismiss it all
because you don't like the messenger.
You made the argument earlier that "Direct Actions" were
understandable, and justified when the people are disenfranchised, and
not represented by the State.
I can't think of a single situation where I would condone violence,
illegal actions, and violating others here in the US today. Everyone
has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups.

Who says that I agree with and support what those people are doing? Secondly, if
everyone has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups, why are
we in Iraq? there were marches of hundreds of thousands of people and Bush said that
he doesn't make decisions based on public opinion. Cheney re-asserted that in the
last week. I find it funny to think back to those marches - a couple of times there
were counter-protests. At one, there were 86 reporters to cover 45 people
demonstrating in favor of the war. That got bigger coverage in several major news
outlets than the antiwar march. So I don't buy that argument.

Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to be
murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.

People who consider abortionto be murder are marginalized? Hmm, I guess visits to
the White House and promises of Supreme Court members who'll overturn Roe v. Wade is
as marginalized as one can get.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck wrote:
After you told me I was a Stalinist Maoist FARCer, I happened to hear a
song bythe Stranglers called "No More Heroes"

Gordon Brown, texture like sun.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
Your problem is that you have read a dictionary and become confused.

It's simple, really. Evil people are liberals. Good people are
conservatives.

Don't you mean evil people are gay, liberal, impotent nazis.

On Mar 27, 2:49*am, Howard Kveck wrote:


* *Who says that I agree with and support what those people are doing? Secondly, if
everyone has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups, why are
we in Iraq? there were marches of hundreds of thousands of people and Bush said that
he doesn't make decisions based on public opinion. Cheney re-asserted that in the
last week. I find it funny to think back to those marches - a couple of times there
were counter-protests. At one, there were 86 reporters to cover 45 people
demonstrating in favor of the war. That got bigger coverage in several major news
outlets than the antiwar march. So I don't buy that argument.

It's a democaracy,everyone gets to be heard, and the anti-war folks
were heard. Democracy doesn't mean that everyone gets what they want.
Bush even got a second term, and the approval in the beginning of Iraq
was sky high.

*Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to
be
murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
*I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.

* *People who consider abortionto be murder are marginalized? Hmm, I guess visits to
the White House and promises of Supreme Court members who'll overturn Roe v. Wade is
as marginalized as one can get.

Here we go again. How clearly do I have to state a specific condition
to get you to reply to the damned question? You avoid like a dodgeball
PHD. I specifically made the case for here in Mass., or I could've
made the case for Gay Rights in Kansas. That you would've answered.


--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

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

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill C

On Mar 27, 2:49*am, Howard Kveck wrote:


* *That's what you hear from her? I sure don't.

Including when she was here in the Valley before going national.
Everyone who isn't for open borders, abortion on demand, a gay rights
constitutional protection, etc... is a vicious, bigotted troglidyte. I
listened to her show almost every morning because my partner was a
fan, and she played really great, eclectic music. She was the same in
person at events here to like "First Night" which she hosted.

*There was NO thread hijack. TK started a thread on liberal fascism,
everyone jumped into bashing him.

* *Yeah, because he was wrong, you know? His definition of facism is wrong (and it
appears you agree with it).

Never said a word on whether he was right or wrong, just that there
was s group bashing in progress. granted he brings a LOT of that on
himself.

I only jumped in after an incident
of "liberals" attacking folks, showing NO respect, and violating their
right to freely practice their religion. They should've insisted on
assault charges for the paint that was thrown on them, at a minimum.

* *Bill, When I read you post that some assholes disrupted an Easter service, I'm
inclined to agree, but I know that, just as predictably as rain on a summer afternoon
in Florida, you'll make an additional comment like the ones about "heroes", MoveOn
and Obama. You can't help yourself.


*Explain to me why I have SO little problem with so many other anti-
war folks? Because they aren't locked into the Reagan Rule, and aren't
willing to excuse/justify almost anything done by the left. Believe it
or not a lot of my friends here are activist types, ex-hippies,
etc...the difference being there is give and take in discussions with
them, not stonewalling and blanket defense.

* *Because I've seen the pattern a metric buttload of times, Bill, and I start to get
weary of it. Grotesque generalizations and smears like the one that got this ball
rolling.

Once again your claim is that NONE of the national organizations know
anything about these activities, don't fund any of them, provide no
training, and there's no overlap between the folks leading the
national groups and the "direct action" groups. That's demonstrably
false, and has been demostrated numerous times.
There was serious talk of bringing either tax, or legal actions
against PETA, and HSUS because both were found to be channelling funds
to ALF/ELF PETA admitted it and did the, "It's only for non-violent
promotional use". bit and, after massive pressure, got off.

*I admit, as you do, to being WAY more stubborn and offensive with you
becuase you take the sanctity position for the left. You critically
evaluate the left the way Malkin and Coulter evaluate the right. Most
of the folks, left, or right don't do that.

* *You're saying I'm as bad as Malkin and Coulter? I find that to be absurd.

Snipped
I wanted to clarify this one, as I made a big error in how I phrased
it. You are a good, decent human being, they aren't. They are hate
mongers, you aren't.
I would've said that say you evaluate and defend the folks you agree
with in the same manner as they do, except in the last few posts I've
seen a slightly different tone, which was a lot more in line with what
I'd expect from the person I think you are. A huge part of my pounding
away at, asking if you "REALLY" support that, or "Give that a free
pass" is that I can't reconcile those positions with the good person
you seem to be. I pushed, you reacted, we got off into a totally
alternate reality.
I still do think that the some of the national folks do support,
fund, and promote intimidation and violence, and vehemently object to
the direction they are trying to take things . You think the same
about the right. With either group it's a case of which rights, and
freedoms do you wantr to lose. they're both gonna take things away.
Since I'm in favor of more freedom all around I'm even more screwed.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

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

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill C