Extracted from Thread

Bill C said:

On Feb 12, 6:11 pm, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.

Quoted message said:

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

Quoted message said:

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does not
affect that in any way.

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?
 If he said that, he thinks that Castro, on balance has been a good
thing, and is willing to stomach the abuses for the overall good I
could understand that. Many in Hollywood have, and do make that
argument. I disagree, but they're honest up front. Howard does
condemns my making of that argument for people we've supported. Castro
is as relevant today as Gitmo. Cuba is frequently cited as a
preferrrable alternative to the US by folks on the left.

Here's a bit on Hollywood and Castro:
 http://tinyurl.com/3vc22

Bill C

Dumbass -

See reply to TK.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is this type of thing (re:Clinton era administration quotes) that
offers compelling proof that there is little difference between those we
label "coservatives" and those we label "liberals" in the US. You say
to-MAY-toe, I say to-MAH-toe. The actions are the same. Only the
political theater surrounding the actions changes.

So let me see - if a group convinces you that we are in grave danger and
does nothing they are heroes and if another group repeats the same thing
and takes actions they are "liars"?

That's not what I said. If you were to ask, I'd say they're both liars.
It's the way human beings are: they lie. It's not always that big a deal,
sometimes it is. But they do lie, all of them.

So tell me, has there every been a truth in the entire human history? Or is
this just another way to actually avoid commenting on the real facts of the
Muslim extremist world which was coming all together before Iraq was
essentially crushed?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't you see a slight problem with the Democrats swearing for 5 years
that we were in grave danger from Iraq and doing nothing?

Don't pretend 9/11 had no affect on foreign policy. You're not that big a
fool.

Why do you continue to keep from answering the real discussion about why we
moved there?

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When the US violates human rights, that's a bigger deal to me because I
expect more from us. We're capable of better. Castro, not so much.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us how those rights have been broken? #1
They are not Americans. #2 Americans are being seriously endangered by the
actions of these criminals. Without the information they are carrying
possibly millions of lives are being threatened. Anyone that is willing to
give these criminals the chance to quietly murder like that doesn't seem to
have understood the responsibility of a citizen. #3 If you understood this
to be a direct threat to YOUR family my guess is that you'd be all for a lot
worse.

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

On economic issues, what mainsteam media lean left in the US?

Lou Dobbs and Keith Olberman immediately come to mind for systematic
leftist attitudes available every day in a methodical sort of way.
But really, I could watch the news and not be able to write fast
enough to capture leftist perspective commentary as it happens day-by-
day in real time.

Lou Dobbs is a populist. He's not really a leftist
at all - economically or otherwise - he may be a
protectionist, but that's not leftism per se. Unless
he's started ranting about Five Year Plans, but I wouldn't
know, because the last time I was in an airport and Lou
Dobbs was blaring from the TV, a brief exposure made
me so agitated I had to leave and go sit someplace
much less comfortable, but Dobbs-free.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we've already established that
I'm a leftist, I'm unpopular, and Lou Dobbs is popular.
Therefore Dobbs is a populist.

Ben
Goddamn populists, always picking on the
nerdy kids in high school.

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Bret too has talent generating at generating ill-formed questions.  Is
there really safety in the herd.

You are the Eddy Merckx of well-formed questions.

Tom Kunich said:

So tell me, has there every been a truth in the entire human history? Or
is this just another way to actually avoid commenting on the real facts of
the Muslim extremist world which was coming all together before Iraq was
essentially crushed?

Saddam's regime was secular not muslim extremist. If anything they
counterbalanced the muslim extremists in Iran.

Bob Schwartz said:

I'm starting to think you *like* the treadmill.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/t/treadmill.asp

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Quoted message said:

Bret too has talent generating at generating ill-formed questions.  Is
there really safety in the herd.

Bret said:

You are the Eddy Merckx of well-formed questions.

Don't tell Magilla.

On Feb 12, 10:25 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

On Feb 12, 7:59 am, Bill C <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On economic issues, what mainsteam media lean left in the US?

Quoted message said:

Lou Dobbs and Keith Olberman immediately come to mind for systematic
leftist attitudes available every day in a methodical sort of way.
But really, I could watch the news and not be able to write fast
enough to capture leftist perspective commentary as it happens day-by-
day in real time.

Lou Dobbs is a populist.  He's not really a leftist
at all - economically or otherwise - he may be a
protectionist, but that's not leftism per se.  Unless
he's started ranting about Five Year Plans, but I wouldn't
know, because the last time I was in an airport and Lou
Dobbs was blaring from the TV, a brief exposure made
me so agitated I had to leave and go sit someplace
much less comfortable, but Dobbs-free.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we've already established that
I'm a leftist, I'm unpopular, and Lou Dobbs is popular.
Therefore Dobbs is a populist.

Dumbass -

I can't decide which overweight blowhard is worse: Dobbs or Limbaugh.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does not
affect that in any way.

Thank you, Mr. Fredburger. That's precisely the point. It *isn't* all about
equivalence.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.

Howard's problem, as I understand it, is that you wont accept his
condemnation of Gitmo unless he also condemns Castro, [censored], Stalin,
Genghis Khan, Darius I, or some other random, irrelevant evil person.

It seems reasonable to me to say that Gitmo is wrong or bad policy,
explain your reasons, and leave it at that. Castro being Castro does not
affect that in any way.

Fred if human rights matter to you then they matter. If you condemn
one based on human rights, and take the "moral highground" how is the
other, just miles away and worse not a problem?
If he said that, he thinks that Castro, on balance has been a good
thing, and is willing to stomach the abuses for the overall good I
could understand that. Many in Hollywood have, and do make that
argument. I disagree, but they're honest up front. Howard does
condemns my making of that argument for people we've supported. Castro
is as relevant today as Gitmo. Cuba is frequently cited as a
preferrrable alternative to the US by folks on the left.

Here's a bit on Hollywood and Castro:
http://tinyurl.com/3vc22

Bill C

Bill, that piece is by an organization run by Brent Bozell! His whole M.O. is
crying about how liberal the media is. Anyway, it's all opinion.
________________________
Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of
CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets ­ bias by
commission and bias by omission ­ that results in a frequent double-standard in
editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."
________________________

Sounds like "HonestReporting.com" to me.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

I've got to do a better job of showing the seperation of my reactions
to the people, from the reaction to the issues. Moore has highlighted
problem issues, so has Coulter they're both scum though.

I've never seen Coulter discuss an issue - it's all [censored]-slinging. "Edwards is a
[censored]." That's not really discussing an issue. Her books are diatribes against anyone
who doubts that her brand of conservative is the best at everything.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Howard we're back to worldview and perspective again. You have stated
that ALL mainstream media is corporate and has a right wing bias. I
disagree. Some lean left some right. Almost every source you've
pointed me to has been a leftwing indie source.

Well, if you check, they're sourcing their news from a variety of places - some
mainstream, some not. I often link to stuff via a source that also has some insight
or commentary on the news in question. If you really want to get into whether the
mainstream media is more often than not tilted to the right, I'd be glad to. As I
said earlier, I can offer cites until your eyes bleed.

Quoted message said:

My view of moderate independent America was, and is the folks who
really are pretty similar I met living in Manchester NH, Augusta Ga,
Tacoma Wa, not the folks here, or Berkley which seem to be who you
think are in the center.

I don't generalize about an entire geographic region to the extent that you do.
And you really are confused if you think I spend all my time with "fellow travelers."

Quoted message said:

I've repeatedly asked you to list your basic sources,

My sources are all over the place. Left, right, center, you name it. If it's one
that I'm not familiar with, I do some looking into who's behind them before I take
their word as accurate. (However, If Brent Bozell's name is attached, it gets
[censored].)

Quoted message said:

how you've come to the comnclusion that the American center is SO far left of where
I, and most others including Hillary think it is.

I don't think it's *so far* to the left, but I do think the center is more to the
left than you believe. And you know, it's going to get further to the left in the
near future, I suspect.

Quoted message said:

How about any of those little political positioning quizzes, there are some much
more in depth than the one I posted here, I'm betting you wouldn't be anywhere
near center/ctr. left.

I really am not interested in that kind of "scoring" as it has no real meaning to
me. I'm well aware that I'm left of center, Bill.

Quoted message said:

Please show me where McCain is advocating for torture?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002691568_mccain19.html

Quoted message said:

The same rank and file local folks who re-elected him after all the
National extremists came to Connecticut to get rid of him?

Bill, the Dems who voted for Lieberman did so because they liked what he brought
to Conn. as a ranking member of various committees (in other words, the pork). The
people who actually got him re-elected were the Republicans who liked him because
he's pretty much a Republican - he's worked to get everything Bush wants through
Congress. They knew not to waste their votes on the guy who was running as a
Republican.

Quoted message said:

Large protions of what you claim to be radical right has been the
center in most of the places I've lived, and my experience with people
from all over the US.

The movement conservatives that follow people like James Dobson and Grover
Norquist are radical, Bill. There was a big following for that stuff for a while but
it seems to be doing rather badly right now. Those are the people who hate McCain.

Quoted message said:

JFK would be a moderadte today, and you'd be
screaming more about him than Leiberman because he governed way to the
right of the Clintons, Nixon , or Ford. I'm with JFK

Times were different then, Bill. There was a real threat to the US - the Cold War
- so he had to be somewhat more hawkish. Anyway, it's foolish to think that his
positions would remain static. Secondly, I don't think he was to the right of Nixon
and Ford on domestic policy, except for being limited by the times.

Now, I know that one of the cennterpieces of your outlook on things is that "the
left" is responsible for the treatment and deaths of Vietnamese people after the US
pulled out. Well, when JFK died, his policy was to pull the troops out. Are you still
with him?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20881

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Feb 12, 6:27 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Off the treadmill? Hmmm.

Quoted message said:

Look, a long time ago I used to get into things with
Kunich. Eventually I realized there was no point. My
time has value. So I stopped.

Quoted message said:

Political threads are like that. No one ever changes
their opinion, 99.9% of the debate is just yammering
back and forth until one side tires or becomes bored.

<snip>

Dumbass -

I've actually seend a few people change their mind.

When it does happen, it is surprising.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Here are a couple of questions for Howard that might very well change
my view of his positions.
Lets establish a conversation point first though. We had discussed
human rights, and US support for people who violate them. I took, and
do take the position that in the absence of something better the US
should support people who aren't hostile to them, and work on the
violations from there. Howards position was that he would much rather
we never support people who violate human rights, and I could respect
that position.
That brings us to a longstanding thorn in my side that you probably
remember. It was in some of the early discussions on Gitmo, where
everyone including both Lafferty and myself agreed that it was a
disaster. Howard has frequently, and rightly condemned Gitmo and the
supporters of that policy. My problem is that I have never been able
to get Howard to condemn Castro's prisons, torture, summary
executions, and all the folks here on the left who support and laud
Castro. If he has done it, and I missed it, I owe him a huge apology
and will happily make it.

Bill, the fact that I haven't condemned any of those people is that it doesn't
have anything to do with what we've been discussing. You have this idea that you need
to "balance" things. Sadly, no.

Quoted message said:

Another situation is more recent, but in the same vein. The Guardian,
of all people, have concretely tied Hugo Chavez to materially
supporting, and co-operating with FARC. The human rights groups are as
clear on FARC as they are on Castro, yet I haven't been able to get
Howard to criticize Chavez for this, or any of his other behavior they
cite as a serious concern.

"Concretely?" Hmm, going by the article, that's a stretch.
______________________
All the sources I reached agreed that powerful elements within the Venezuelan
state apparatus have forged a strong working relationship with Farc. They told me
that Farc and Venezuelan state officials operated actively together on the ground,
where military and drug-trafficking activities coincide. But the relationship becomes
more passive, they said, less actively involved, the higher up the Venezuelan
government you go. No source I spoke to accused Chávez himself of having a direct
role in Colombia's giant drug-trafficking business. Yet the same people I interviewed
struggled to believe that Chávez was not aware of the collusion between his armed
forces and the leadership of Farc, as they also found it difficult to imagine that he
has no knowledge of the degree to which Farc is involved in the cocaine trade.
______________________

You're pinning your hopes on that last sentence. Lots of supposition there.
Anyway, if he is letting that go on, that's bad. But here's a time when we should
look a bit deeper into the situation. We know that you hate FARC - they started out
as a political group but have morphed into a simple crime group. But it's worth
noting that their enemies, the right wing paramilitary groups, did too. They're both
drug runners - like two mob families fighting for turf. The reason I mention this is
because both groups are causing harm to the general population.

Quoted message said:

The third and last situation is Howard's calling Israeli governement
folks war criminals and such.

Would you care to cite a reference to where I said Israel's govt. are war
criminals?

Quoted message said:

I can see where he gets that, and can't
disagree with a lot of it even, but I have been totally unable to get
him to apply the same labels to Arafat, and the leaders of the
Palestinian, and Pan-Arab groups that deliberately targeted, and
continue to target civilians.

Bill, I have said that I think it's [censored] that they choose to use that tactic.
About the most I've said regarding the Israel-Palestine issue is to offer a few
suggestions as to why the Palestinian people would elect Hamas.

Quoted message said:

Why aren't they also war criminals, and why isn't he calling for them
to be arrested too?\
It's not hard to find me condemning the right and left, and I have
stated up front that, at times I could subjugate absolute human rights
in consideration of National interest so I'm not perfect here. Howard
found that repellant of me. If his belief in human rights is absolute
where is the condemnation of those folks on the left who violate them,
and the condemnation of their supporters here in the US?
Maybe I missed the elephant in the room, if I have will someone
please point him out to me so I can apologize to Howard.

I'll explain it again. No matter what we talk about, you find some other group to
throw at me and demand that I condemn them. So to keep you happy, I'd have to write a
long disclaimer at the beginning of every post that said something like, "I condemn
FARC, Shining Path, Saddam, Hamas, ad infinitum..." Sorry, that's really silly. As
Fred pointed out, there's no reason a person can't say one thing is bad without
having to say every other thing is too.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Howard Kveck said:

   Hmm, you're going to start choking right now. I've said in the past that Nixon
had a lot of good domestic policy ideas. Oh: "gone so far as to defend folks
like Hillary and Bill?" How is that going far? Bill Clinton, that radical, governed
to the right of Ford and Nixon.

Quoted message said:

And it was a brilliant piece of political strategy by Clinton. He gave
the opposition all the military $$$ it asked for, he was extremely
active in the passing of NAFTA, signed the welfare reform bill,
allowed a deadlocked Congress to debate endlessly on what to do with
the budget surplus, the result being the first sustained shrinking of
the federal deficit in 50 years.

The right got more and more [censored] as Clinton stole more and more
of their ideas. All they were left with was abortion and guns.

I think that's is a pretty accurate description. Of course, one way Gingrich and
co. used to attack him was constantly harping on his "extremist" positions, so they
used his positions to move their own much further right. Him giving them so much of
what they wanted was also why they spent so much time trying to destroy his
presidency.

Quoted message said:

I could see McCain doing the same thing to the left.

I think he'd be working too hard to prove himself to the right - people like
Dobson.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bret said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Bret too has talent generating at generating ill-formed questions.  Is
there really safety in the herd.

You are the Eddy Merckx of well-formed questions.

Seems more like a Danny Chew sort of thing than an Eddie Merckx one...

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Donald Munro said:

Bob Schwartz said:

I'm starting to think you *like* the treadmill.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/t/treadmill.asp

Dumbass,
http://media.ejbdotcom.net/content21/Before%20&%20Aftter.jpg

By the way, it's extremely hard to find pictures of hot chicks on a
treadmill.

Ted van de Weteringe said:

http://media.ejbdotcom.net/content21/Before%20&%20Aftter.jpg

By the way, it's extremely hard to find pictures of hot chicks on a
treadmill.

Conversely, its easy to find fat chicks on treadmills:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

I can't decide which overweight blowhard is worse: Dobbs or Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is a doper, while as far as I know Dobbs blows clean.

Fred Fredburger said:

When the US violates human rights, that's a bigger deal to me because I
expect more from us. We're capable of better. Castro, not so much.

This is the very definition of wishful thinking.