OT: Words from a great man

  • Thread starter Kurgan Gringioni
  • Start date



On Nov 13, 12:59 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> Again, which ones, Bill? Sean Penn flew to Iraq just before the war but he
> certainly wasn't praising Saddam. I'm just not real sure how these un-named people
> who're supposed to be doing propaganda pieces for Chavez, Castro and Mugabe have
> influenced anyone. By the way, you've frequently condemned George Soros but I don't
> really know what bad things you believe he's done to this country.
>
> I'll go into the rest of this later or in email (as it's related to the
> coversation already going).
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?


Howard I'll dig this stuff out tonight, but offhand. Harry Belafonte,
Michael Moore, Kucinich.
This is from a nutjob site, but starts to list the left-wing, fund-
raising celebs who support Castro and his vision of society:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200212\NAT20021217a.html

Bill C
 
On Nov 13, 7:25 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:59 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Again, which ones, Bill? Sean Penn flew to Iraq just before the war but he
> > certainly wasn't praising Saddam. I'm just not real sure how these un-named people
> > who're supposed to be doing propaganda pieces for Chavez, Castro and Mugabe have
> > influenced anyone. By the way, you've frequently condemned George Soros but I don't
> > really know what bad things you believe he's done to this country.

>
> > I'll go into the rest of this later or in email (as it's related to the
> > coversation already going).

>
> > --
> > tanx,
> > Howard

>
> > Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

>
> > remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

>
> Howard I'll dig this stuff out tonight, but offhand. Harry Belafonte,
> Michael Moore, Kucinich.
> This is from a nutjob site, but starts to list the left-wing, fund-
> raising celebs who support Castro and his vision of society:
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200212\NAT20021217a.html
>
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Anyone got that list of Leftist types taking responsibility, or
calling for any of the "socialist" murders they supported to be held
accountable? John Kerry was happy to go to Vietnam to promote trade
with the government there, but I haven't heard him call for those
folks who ran the Hanoi Hilton to face the court at the Hague? A
handful of Khmer-Rouge have been rounded up to face farcical trials at
home, where's the outcry from the left about all the others?
Personal Responsibility, just has never seemed, to me, to be a trait
valued by the left. Actually it seems to be anathema in their world of
collective society. It's almost always someone, or something else's
fault, and there is no guilt for anything, except of course if you
aren't a member of the tribe. Then you're guilty as hell. It's like
Catholics and absolution, it's all OK as long as you "confess", but
everyone else is going to burn in hell for it because they aren't oart
of the proper tribe.
Mugabe's support may be down, and I agree that it is, but where're
the people saying, "Damn that was one murderous scumbag we shouldn't
have protested in favor of, and supported." Where're they calling for
him to be brought to trial? Haven't seen it, don't expect to see it.
How about holding the Catholic Church responsible for hiding hids
terrorists, weapons, bombs, etc... and helping him come to power?
That's worked out well, huh? He didn't quite hold the same "Revolution
Theology" , "socialist paradise" thoughts they thought he did, and
they pushed. Just more murders in the name of God. They taken
responsibility for helping him and the others come to power yet?
Bill C
Bill C
 
On 11/12/2007 07:03 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom
Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:


> Ain't it funny how ALL of the great socialist leaders that the Liberals have
> supported have spent so much time murdering their populations? And when they
> aren't murdering them they're removing as much free will from their
> countrymen as possible.



Ain't it funny how so many of the great right-wing leaders that the
conservatives has supported have spent so much time murdering their
populations? And when they aren't murdering them, they're removing as much
free will from their countrymen as possible.

People like Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua), Augusto Pinchet (Chile), Ferdinand
Marcos (Philippines), the military dictatorship (and their associated death
squads) in El Salvador, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia ... amongst many
others, including some guy named Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.

I'm smart enough not to making sweeping generalizations like Tommy-boy does;
but the right wing is no better that what he accuses the left wing of doing.





--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
 
Bill C wrote:
> Howard I'll dig this stuff out tonight, but offhand. Harry Belafonte,
> Michael Moore, Kucinich.
> This is from a nutjob site, but starts to list the left-wing, fund-
> raising celebs who support Castro and his vision of society:
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200212\NAT20021217a.html


Bill,

Turn the computer off. Take a deep breath. Go for a ride.
When you get back, crack open a beer.

When I clicked on that link one of the headlines was,
and I'm not making this up, 'Transgender Bathrooms Still A
Threat, Despite Changes to Bill'. I wonder what changes
they could make to Bill to make him a bathroom threat.

The rest of it was a listing of celebrities that have been
to Cuba along with isolated quotes with no context. And
maybe a nugget or two of genuine support for Castro and
his vision.

Your political depth perception is totally out of whack.
You're ranting about people cheering on Mugabe when maybe
some tiny fraction of a percent of the US population even
knows who Robert Mugabe is. Which would be a prerequisite
for cheering him on, don't you think?

This is not healthy for you. Turn the computer off. Go for
a ride.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:52:56 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Nov 13, 7:25 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 12:59 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Again, which ones, Bill? Sean Penn flew to Iraq just before the war but he
>> > certainly wasn't praising Saddam. I'm just not real sure how these un-named people
>> > who're supposed to be doing propaganda pieces for Chavez, Castro and Mugabe have
>> > influenced anyone. By the way, you've frequently condemned George Soros but I don't
>> > really know what bad things you believe he's done to this country.

>>
>> > I'll go into the rest of this later or in email (as it's related to the
>> > coversation already going).

>>
>> > --
>> > tanx,
>> > Howard

>>
>> > Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

>>
>> > remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

>>
>> Howard I'll dig this stuff out tonight, but offhand. Harry Belafonte,
>> Michael Moore, Kucinich.
>> This is from a nutjob site, but starts to list the left-wing, fund-
>> raising celebs who support Castro and his vision of society:
>>
>> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200212\NAT20021217a.html
>>
>> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
>Anyone got that list of Leftist types taking responsibility, or
>calling for any of the "socialist" murders they supported to be held
>accountable? John Kerry was happy to go to Vietnam to promote trade
>with the government there, but I haven't heard him call for those
>folks who ran the Hanoi Hilton to face the court at the Hague? A
>handful of Khmer-Rouge have been rounded up to face farcical trials at
>home, where's the outcry from the left about all the others?
> Personal Responsibility, just has never seemed, to me, to be a trait
>valued by the left. Actually it seems to be anathema in their world of
>collective society. It's almost always someone, or something else's
>fault, and there is no guilt for anything, except of course if you
>aren't a member of the tribe. Then you're guilty as hell. It's like
>Catholics and absolution, it's all OK as long as you "confess", but
>everyone else is going to burn in hell for it because they aren't oart
>of the proper tribe.
> Mugabe's support may be down, and I agree that it is, but where're
>the people saying, "Damn that was one murderous scumbag we shouldn't
>have protested in favor of, and supported." Where're they calling for
>him to be brought to trial? Haven't seen it, don't expect to see it.
>How about holding the Catholic Church responsible for hiding hids
>terrorists, weapons, bombs, etc... and helping him come to power?
>That's worked out well, huh? He didn't quite hold the same "Revolution
>Theology" , "socialist paradise" thoughts they thought he did, and
>they pushed. Just more murders in the name of God. They taken
>responsibility for helping him and the others come to power yet?
> Bill C
> Bill C


Lets also not forget the Lefts support for that murderous ***** Winnie
Mandela...who made "necklacing"....putting a burning tire filled with
gasoline, around the neck of her opponents. And her husband Nelson,
who was just as bad.

Gunner
 
On Nov 13, 9:06 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 11/12/2007 07:03 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom
>
> Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > Ain't it funny how ALL of the great socialist leaders that the Liberals have
> > supported have spent so much time murdering their populations? And when they
> > aren't murdering them they're removing as much free will from their
> > countrymen as possible.

>
> Ain't it funny how so many of the great right-wing leaders that the
> conservatives has supported have spent so much time murdering their
> populations? And when they aren't murdering them, they're removing as much
> free will from their countrymen as possible.
>
> People like Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua), Augusto Pinchet (Chile), Ferdinand
> Marcos (Philippines), the military dictatorship (and their associated death
> squads) in El Salvador, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia ... amongst many
> others, including some guy named Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.
>
> I'm smart enough not to making sweeping generalizations like Tommy-boy does;
> but the right wing is no better that what he accuses the left wing of doing.
>
> --
> Steven L. Sheffield
> stevens at veloworks dot com
> bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
> ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
> aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
> double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash


I almost agree Steven. The difference in my mind is that the scumbags
the right support are at least willing to work with the US. The
scumbags the left support seem to hate the US and everything we stand
for. How can you excuse the massive support in the US among the left
for the folks who ran the Hanoi Hilton?
I think we'd all be happier if we didn't support any of them, but a
current example is Masharraf. He's at least marginally controlling his
own pro Taleban folks, and trying to at least limit, to some extent,
the support for the worst of the Islamic nutcases that is huge among
Pakistanis. I'm not sure if they'd win a free election, but after the
Hamas disaster it's at least time to be concerned, and not just hand
them, their friends in the Pak intelligence services and military the
keys to the nukes.
I don't think Bhutto is strong enough, and I don't think she'd squash
a Taleban/Bin Laden election victory.
So yes, I'm reluctantly supporting a scumbag, who at least at the
moment is better than any alternative that I see.

Bill C
 
On Nov 13, 10:13 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Howard I'll dig this stuff out tonight, but offhand. Harry Belafonte,
> > Michael Moore, Kucinich.
> > This is from a nutjob site, but starts to list the left-wing, fund-
> > raising celebs who support Castro and his vision of society:

>
> >http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200212\NAT20021217a.html

>
> Bill,
>
> Turn the computer off. Take a deep breath. Go for a ride.
> When you get back, crack open a beer.
>
> When I clicked on that link one of the headlines was,
> and I'm not making this up, 'Transgender Bathrooms Still A
> Threat, Despite Changes to Bill'. I wonder what changes
> they could make to Bill to make him a bathroom threat.
>
> The rest of it was a listing of celebrities that have been
> to Cuba along with isolated quotes with no context. And
> maybe a nugget or two of genuine support for Castro and
> his vision.
>
> Your political depth perception is totally out of whack.
> You're ranting about people cheering on Mugabe when maybe
> some tiny fraction of a percent of the US population even
> knows who Robert Mugabe is. Which would be a prerequisite
> for cheering him on, don't you think?
>
> This is not healthy for you. Turn the computer off. Go for
> a ride.
>
> Bob Schwartz


Bob, Notice I said it came from a nutjob site. I just didn't have the
time to track down anything more reliable this morning. The list of
celebs who, both, do major fundraising for MoveOn, and pilgrimage to
Cuba, and now Venezuela is long and distinguished.
Denying it is like denying that the right here supports corporate
profits, and big business over just about every other concern, or that
the globe is warming.
I've been pretty damned cranky for about 6 weeks now as Howard well
knows. On top of doing our normal jobs, I've been dropping trees,
cutting and splitting about 8 cord of wood, and trying to get 2
additions built, and an inside update on the rest of our new house.
If it wasn't for doping I'd either be homocidal, or curled up in a
corner. Last couple of days was humping 2"x10"x16' Pressure treated
****, plywood, and 2"x6" framing. Tons of overhead work which sucks
with a bad back and two surgically repaired shoulders.
Luckily I'm a cyclist and pain is good and normal, no?;-)

Unlike the others I'm not painting the liberals, and left with the
EVIL brush. It's the activist folks who are "LIberal", "Left",
"Amerikans" that make me nuts, and unfortunately the liberal, left,
average folks don't seem willing to hold them responsible for
anything. For veterans day I'm surrounded by people who are insane
over Gitmo, but have no problem with the Hanoi Hilton, and are only
sorry more troops aren't dieing.
Picture Howard stuck in BubbaChurch evangelical, we hate musicians
unless they play the two greatest types of music, Country, and
Western, Westboro Baptist, confederate flag Alabama. I'm in the middle
of the mirror image.
A local psychologist was molesting his young teenage clients, when he
was caught at it, and charges filed, the community rallied to his
support and held protests and fundraisers for him because of his
innovative therapy methods. That's typical of here. All the recruiting
stations here closed probably 20 years ago because they couldn't keep
them in one piece. They were constantly vandalized, and I think the
final straw was a failed firebomb in the army office. The JROTC was
driven out.
I love a lot of things, and a lot of them are the same things the
liberals here love. We've got education, a great music scene, great
riding, beautiful land, cool downtowns, awesome independent/used book
stores, but the price is dealing with the insane left fascist groups
that also make or break all the politicians who cater to them, or
else. 25 years ago there was still some balance, that's long gone.
We need the balance of people on both sides, both ends of the
spectrum are full of scumbags, if the left would stop supporting
people who HATE America, and the people who've served then I could
deal with them a lot better, but when they destroy recruiting offices,
scream hate at disabled vets, and protest in support of Castro,
Chavez, the Sandinistas, etc...I have a problem with that, and my
guess is that you and most of the "liberals" that get bashed here
would to. That site aside we've had a parade to kiss Chavez ring, and
the same people are foaming about human rights. Danny Glover is
typical of this, but somehow "Liberals", and a lot of liberals deny
there's any support for these people.
You are all better people than that. A scumbag is a scumbag.
Bill C
 
On Nov 13, 8:23 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Bob, Notice I said it came from a nutjob site. I just didn't have the
> time to track down anything more reliable this morning. The list of
> celebs who, both, do major fundraising for MoveOn, and pilgrimage to
> Cuba, and now Venezuela is long and distinguished.
> Denying it is like denying that the right here supports corporate
> profits, and big business over just about every other concern, or that
> the globe is warming.
> I've been pretty damned cranky for about 6 weeks now as Howard well
> knows. On top of doing our normal jobs, I've been dropping trees,
> cutting and splitting about 8 cord of wood, and trying to get 2
> additions built, and an inside update on the rest of our new house.
> If it wasn't for doping I'd either be homocidal, or curled up in a
> corner. Last couple of days was humping 2"x10"x16' Pressure treated
> ****, plywood, and 2"x6" framing. Tons of overhead work which sucks
> with a bad back and two surgically repaired shoulders.
> Luckily I'm a cyclist and pain is good and normal, no?;-)
>
> Unlike the others I'm not painting the liberals, and left with the
> EVIL brush. It's the activist folks who are "LIberal", "Left",
> "Amerikans" that make me nuts, and unfortunately the liberal, left,
> average folks don't seem willing to hold them responsible for
> anything. For veterans day I'm surrounded by people who are insane
> over Gitmo, but have no problem with the Hanoi Hilton, and are only
> sorry more troops aren't dieing.
> Picture Howard stuck in BubbaChurch evangelical, we hate musicians
> unless they play the two greatest types of music, Country, and
> Western, Westboro Baptist, confederate flag Alabama. I'm in the middle
> of the mirror image.
> A local psychologist was molesting his young teenage clients, when he
> was caught at it, and charges filed, the community rallied to his
> support and held protests and fundraisers for him because of his
> innovative therapy methods. That's typical of here. All the recruiting
> stations here closed probably 20 years ago because they couldn't keep
> them in one piece. They were constantly vandalized, and I think the
> final straw was a failed firebomb in the army office. The JROTC was
> driven out.
> I love a lot of things, and a lot of them are the same things the
> liberals here love. We've got education, a great music scene, great
> riding, beautiful land, cool downtowns, awesome independent/used book
> stores, but the price is dealing with the insane left fascist groups
> that also make or break all the politicians who cater to them, or
> else. 25 years ago there was still some balance, that's long gone.
> We need the balance of people on both sides, both ends of the
> spectrum are full of scumbags, if the left would stop supporting
> people who HATE America, and the people who've served then I could
> deal with them a lot better, but when they destroy recruiting offices,
> scream hate at disabled vets, and protest in support of Castro,
> Chavez, the Sandinistas, etc...I have a problem with that, and my
> guess is that you and most of the "liberals" that get bashed here
> would to. That site aside we've had a parade to kiss Chavez ring, and
> the same people are foaming about human rights. Danny Glover is
> typical of this, but somehow "Liberals", and a lot of liberals deny
> there's any support for these people.
> You are all better people than that. A scumbag is a scumbag.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


MoveOn lobbying to shield Glover from responsibility for his actions:
http://civic.moveon.org/mediacorps/mediacorps11.html
I guess this one didn't get to Howard.
Bill C
 
"Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:59:12 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>. If MoveOn was doing that, I'd see it in their mailings,

>
> You actually admit to regularly receiving the Moveon.org mailings?
>
> Really?
>
> And your head hasnt imploded after reading, when they sucked out your
> brains?


After the first newsletter most of their regulars don't have any brains left
to suck out. On the other hand, most of those who fall for the Moveon.org
**** never had any to begin with.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 13, 9:06 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2007 07:03 PM, in article [email protected],
>> "Tom
>>
>> Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> > Ain't it funny how ALL of the great socialist leaders that the Liberals
>> > have
>> > supported have spent so much time murdering their populations? And when
>> > they
>> > aren't murdering them they're removing as much free will from their
>> > countrymen as possible.

>>
>> Ain't it funny how so many of the great right-wing leaders that the
>> conservatives has supported have spent so much time murdering their
>> populations? And when they aren't murdering them, they're removing as
>> much
>> free will from their countrymen as possible.
>>
>> People like Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua), Augusto Pinchet (Chile),
>> Ferdinand
>> Marcos (Philippines), the military dictatorship (and their associated
>> death
>> squads) in El Salvador, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia ... amongst
>> many
>> others, including some guy named Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.
>>
>> I'm smart enough not to making sweeping generalizations like Tommy-boy
>> does;
>> but the right wing is no better that what he accuses the left wing of
>> doing.
>>
>> --
>> Steven L. Sheffield
>> stevens at veloworks dot com
>> bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
>> ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
>> aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
>> double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

>
> I almost agree Steven. The difference in my mind is that the scumbags
> the right support are at least willing to work with the US. The
> scumbags the left support seem to hate the US and everything we stand
> for. How can you excuse the massive support in the US among the left
> for the folks who ran the Hanoi Hilton?
> I think we'd all be happier if we didn't support any of them, but a
> current example is Masharraf. He's at least marginally controlling his
> own pro Taleban folks, and trying to at least limit, to some extent,
> the support for the worst of the Islamic nutcases that is huge among
> Pakistanis. I'm not sure if they'd win a free election, but after the
> Hamas disaster it's at least time to be concerned, and not just hand
> them, their friends in the Pak intelligence services and military the
> keys to the nukes.
> I don't think Bhutto is strong enough, and I don't think she'd squash
> a Taleban/Bin Laden election victory.
> So yes, I'm reluctantly supporting a scumbag, who at least at the
> moment is better than any alternative that I see.


Steven loves the idea of supporting people who would murder him for his own
values. And he is strange enough not to even understand that.

If you're going to support a penny ante louse (and we're forced to do that
whether we like it or not - you might actually read some of the writings of
Lyndon Johnson where he expressed complete surprise that you could buy off
some of the world's worst dictators rather cheaply) you might as well get
one that will actually support you and not one who wants to destroy the
world.

Liberals supported Stalin to the point where they printed complete and utter
lies in the New York Times about the great life under Stalin. And virtually
every tin horn lunatic that had the intelligence to quote socialist
propaganda since then has been supported without question by Liberals here.

For crying out loud - US Jews have been the most ardent supporters of the
enemies of Israel.
 
On Nov 13, 8:13 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Howard I'll dig this stuff out tonight, but offhand. Harry Belafonte,
> > Michael Moore, Kucinich.
> > This is from a nutjob site, but starts to list the left-wing, fund-
> > raising celebs who support Castro and his vision of society:

>
> >http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200212\NAT20021217a.html

>
> Bill,
>
> Turn the computer off. Take a deep breath. Go for a ride.
> When you get back, crack open a beer.
>
> When I clicked on that link one of the headlines was,
> and I'm not making this up, 'Transgender Bathrooms Still A
> Threat, Despite Changes to Bill'. I wonder what changes
> they could make to Bill to make him a bathroom threat.


Giving him a "wide stance."
Which in cycling, could be caused by a large
Q-factor on your cranks.
OMFG, I finally realized what the "Q" in Q-factor
stands for. Don't ride those cranks, they'll
turn you gay! Heh heh, Beavis, he said "crank."

What is it with bathrooms? Way back when, people
fought the ERA by circulating scare stories about
unisex bathrooms. Like this was a real concern -
no guy could ever tolerate the line for the women's
room, and no woman would tolerate the, uh, hygiene
of the men's room. Unless the line was really
long, I guess. Anyway, I'm not sure whether the
nutjobs are worried about drag queens invading the
women's room, or more scarily to them, the men's
room.

The bathroom nonsense would be so much simpler if they
were all bike racers - bike racers only use portapotties
or relieve themselves outside, next to the start line.

Ben
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What is it with bathrooms? Way back when, people
> fought the ERA by circulating scare stories about
> unisex bathrooms. Like this was a real concern -
> no guy could ever tolerate the line for the women's
> room, and no woman would tolerate the, uh, hygiene
> of the men's room.


I've done a lot of dirty jobs that people won't do such as cleaning up the
rest rooms in club houses etc. and if you believe that the women's rooms are
cleaner than the men's rooms it only demonstrates that you've never cleaned
up one.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anyone got that list of Leftist types taking responsibility, or
> calling for any of the "socialist" murders they supported to be held
> accountable? John Kerry was happy to go to Vietnam to promote trade
> with the government there, but I haven't heard him call for those
> folks who ran the Hanoi Hilton to face the court at the Hague? A
> handful of Khmer-Rouge have been rounded up to face farcical trials at
> home, where's the outcry from the left about all the others?


Well, I shouldn't have to point out that there isn't much of a list of people on
the right standing up to take responsibility for the stuff they supported (many of
which Steven listed). I suppose one way to look at it is that once lefties find out
that someone they supported has turned out to be a piece of ****, they frequently
tend to get quiet about it, while the people on the right frequently continue to
vocally support their people (see: Kunich, Tom).

There's a lot of people that have pooh-poohed the abuse at Abu Ghraib but still
are agitating about the "Hanoi Hilton". As for the Khmer-Rouge, firstly, that was
thirty years ago; secondly, there wasn't a great deal of Khmer support here in
America. There were protests against the 8 year bombimg campaign by the US, but that
bombing is well known to have been a Khmer recruiting aid (same as Iraq is a al Qaeda
recruiting aid). So I have a tough time seeing where the "left" owes much
responsibility for the Cambodian slaughter.

> Personal Responsibility, just has never seemed, to me, to be a trait
> valued by the left. Actually it seems to be anathema in their world of
> collective society. It's almost always someone, or something else's
> fault, and there is no guilt for anything, except of course if you
> aren't a member of the tribe. Then you're guilty as hell. It's like
> Catholics and absolution, it's all OK as long as you "confess", but
> everyone else is going to burn in hell for it because they aren't oart
> of the proper tribe.


I don't know, Bill, but I think you're slamming one side while completely ignoring
the fact that you can easily say the same things about people on the other side.
Gummer Piles and Kunich (a match that must have Henry in stitches) have no trouble
blaming the evil Liberals for every evil and wrong in the world but absolving
everything that they can't blame on them as being just fine.

> Mugabe's support may be down, and I agree that it is, but where're
> the people saying, "Damn that was one murderous scumbag we shouldn't
> have protested in favor of, and supported."


Back (years ago) when there was any movement in the US for the end of apartheid
rule in Rhodesia, there wasn't much support for Mugabe, as no one knew who he was.
Once he had power, well you bet he's been horrible - just as bad as the white
colonialists were back in the thirties (they used anthrax on the population a few
times back then - nice, huh?).

One thing I think you sometimes do is to see that there is no large outcry for
some bad group or person in Country X by the "left" and assume that equals the "left"
*supports* that bad group or person. That's not the case. Now, you like certain music
or TV shows - I hope you don't get so wound up when other people don't care for those
same things. But that's kind of what you seem to be doing here: you see certain
things as worthy causes but you're getting wound up when others don't necessarily see
those same things as as much of a worthy cause as you do (i.e. they aren't out
protesting about it).

--
tanx,
Howard

Safe when used as directed...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 9:06 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On 11/12/2007 07:03 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom
> > Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > Ain't it funny how ALL of the great socialist leaders that the Liberals have
> > > supported have spent so much time murdering their populations? And when they
> > > aren't murdering them they're removing as much free will from their
> > > countrymen as possible.

> >
> > Ain't it funny how so many of the great right-wing leaders that the
> > conservatives has supported have spent so much time murdering their
> > populations? And when they aren't murdering them, they're removing as much
> > free will from their countrymen as possible.
> >
> > People like Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua), Augusto Pinchet (Chile), Ferdinand
> > Marcos (Philippines), the military dictatorship (and their associated death
> > squads) in El Salvador, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia ... amongst many
> > others, including some guy named Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.
> >
> > I'm smart enough not to making sweeping generalizations like Tommy-boy does:
> > but the right wing is no better that what he accuses the left wing of doing.


> I almost agree Steven. The difference in my mind is that the scumbags
> the right support are at least willing to work with the US.


Bill, you said the following in another post:
__________________
"I do see a lot of "This isn't what we intended, but it's for the
greater good." Or "we meant well so it's really OK." and similar
rationalizations from the left, and that's for torture, murder, brutal
repressions, etc...which dwarf anything happening at Gitmo, but they
just hide under their rocks on anything they were involved with."
__________________
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/75ad9a22cf6414dd

I'd say that there really isn't any difference between that and rationalizing
support by the right of scumbags because they're "at least willing to work with the
US." Does the fact that the govt. in El Salvador (for example) worked with Reagan
make the dead any less dead? Or the people in Chile?

i can suggest one reason that lefties in the US get worked up over things like El
Salvador, the Phillipines, Nicaraugua, etc. Perhaps they see our tax dollars and
resources being spent to support brutal regimes and oppression in those countries.

--
tanx,
Howard

Safe when used as directed...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Steven loves the idea of supporting people who would murder him for
> his own values. And he is strange enough not to even understand that.
>
> If you're going to support a penny ante louse (and we're forced to do
> that whether we like it or not - you might actually read some of the
> writings of Lyndon Johnson where he expressed complete surprise that
> you could buy off some of the world's worst dictators rather cheaply)
> you might as well get one that will actually support you and not one
> who wants to destroy the world.


The problem with this is when they look good now (such as the
mujahideen in
Afghanistan, supported by both political parties since they were doing
a
nice job of stopping the Soviets) but then a few years later they turn
out
not to be such good guys (bin Laden, indirectly the Taleban).

> Liberals supported Stalin to the point where they printed complete
> and utter lies in the New York Times about the great life under
> Stalin. And virtually every tin horn lunatic that had the
> intelligence to quote socialist propaganda since then has been
> supported without question by Liberals here.


There is a difference between communism and socialism. It doesn't help
that communists tend to claim they're socialists because it sounds
nicer,
but there is a difference. Then there is the issue of government on
top of
that.

Communism basically assumes that there are enough resources around
that
splitting the pot evenly leaves everyone happy (maybe true in a few
First
World countries today, but not most - wouldn't be true in the US, for
instance) and that people will continue to be productive when they get
no
reward for it (well, maybe 5% of people will, but 5% of people does
not make
an economy). It's a stupid and unworkable idea, but not inherently
evil.

Socialism assumes that the richer people in society will pay for the
poorer
people to have certain basics. Some of this is IMO good, some isn't.
For
example, a national health service is a socialist idea: everyone gets
basic
medical care for free. That is a good idea: it means you don't find
yourself
having to work two jobs and mess up your kids' lives to pay your
parents'
medical bills. On the other hand, another socialist idea is paying
what over
here is called 'jobseekers allowance' which a lot of people stay on
for
years at a time without any intention of getting a job, alternating
between
petty crime and sprogging off children they can't care for. Which is
not a
good idea.

Then you have the question of government. Now in general voters can be
pretty stupid, but getting 50% of a country to vote for communism with
another party around explaining why it doesn't work is pretty
unlikely. So,
communist governments are ones which came out of a revolution or coup.
And
that means, usually, that the people at the top are primarily
interested in
being at the top and staying there at all costs. So you get a lot of
bad
things happening which have nothing to do with communism (on top of
economic
problems which are due to communism not being workable) that happen in
just
about any dictatorship.

> For crying out loud - US Jews have been the most ardent supporters of
> the enemies of Israel.


There is a big difference between 'a small but loud minority of this
group
believe' and 'this group believes'. Observing from outside the US,
it's easy
to think that everyone in the US believes in creationism, that the
world is
a few thousand years old and that Armageddon is approaching - because
although your Christian fundamentalists are a small minority, they're
also
very loud.

But since you mention Israel - here's a quick run-down.

Shortly after WWII the Allies felt a lot of guilt for not having acted
fast
enough to prevent the Holocaust. A small but loud minority of Jews had
re-settled in Palestine, which at the time was a majority Arab state
under a
British mandate. A mixture of the Allies' guilt and the loud minority
making
political noises resulted in the UN (strongly pushed by the USA)
splitting
Palestine up into two parts. That was never acceptable to the Arabs
who
lived there - which hopefully you can understand; imagine how you'd
feel if
someone announced that since there are now a lot of Hispanics in the
US, as
of tomorrow the southern States will be a Hispanic homeland governed
by a
bunch of guys over from Mexico. So, it was always a stupid idea. And
not
surprisingly, shortly afterwards Israel got attacked by several
neighbouring
countries. And the UN, having made the original mistake of creating
Israel,
essentially said, here are cut-price weapons but now it's your country
and
defend yourselves. Which was another mistake; the UN should have
accepted
that it was basically responsible for the war and gone in to do its
own
peacekeeping. But instead Israel got weapons and no peacekeepers; and
the
next time the Arabs did something threatening Israel responded with a
land
grab (which of course didn't help anyone). Then you have a whole
string of
attempted territory grabs back and forth and a lot of unpleasant
behaviour
by both sides up to the present.

I'd observe that the USA has always been the most vocal supporter of
Israel.
And it's really only since the establishment of Israel that suddenly
most of
that area decided to hate the USA. This is not a coincidence in any
way.

I'd also point out that for once we got something right: having been
given
the initial mandate to create a Jewish homeland we decided it wasn't
workable and tried to stop the UN doing it.

Pete
 
On 11/13/2007 10:09 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom
Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What is it with bathrooms? Way back when, people
>> fought the ERA by circulating scare stories about
>> unisex bathrooms. Like this was a real concern -
>> no guy could ever tolerate the line for the women's
>> room, and no woman would tolerate the, uh, hygiene
>> of the men's room.

>
> I've done a lot of dirty jobs that people won't do such as cleaning up the
> rest rooms in club houses etc. and if you believe that the women's rooms are
> cleaner than the men's rooms it only demonstrates that you've never cleaned
> up one.



I'm with Kunich on this one. Having spent a number of years working in
restaurants and bars when I was younger, women's restrooms are generally
equally (if not even more so) disgusting than the men's room.



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
 
On Nov 14, 6:49 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I'm with Kunich on this one. Having spent a number of years working in
> restaurants and bars when I was younger, women's restrooms are generally
> equally (if not even more so) disgusting than the men's room.


Hey! It's not their fault! --D-y
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I've done a lot of dirty jobs that people won't do such as cleaning up
>> the rest rooms in club houses etc. and if you believe that the women's
>> rooms are cleaner than the men's rooms it only demonstrates that you've
>> never cleaned up one.

>

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> I'm with Kunich on this one. Having spent a number of years working in
> restaurants and bars when I was younger, women's restrooms are generally
> equally (if not even more so) disgusting than the men's room.


They'd probably say at least the toilet seats are down.
 
Bill C wrote:
> I've been pretty damned cranky for about 6 weeks now as Howard well
> knows. On top of doing our normal jobs, I've been dropping trees,
> cutting and splitting about 8 cord of wood, and trying to get 2
> additions built, and an inside update on the rest of our new house.
> If it wasn't for doping I'd either be homocidal, or curled up in a
> corner. Last couple of days was humping 2"x10"x16' Pressure treated
> ****, plywood, and 2"x6" framing. Tons of overhead work which sucks
> with a bad back and two surgically repaired shoulders.
> Luckily I'm a cyclist and pain is good and normal, no?;-)


That stuff is not doing anywhere near the damage to you that your
computer is doing.

> Picture Howard stuck in BubbaChurch evangelical, we hate musicians
> unless they play the two greatest types of music, Country, and
> Western, Westboro Baptist, confederate flag Alabama. I'm in the middle
> of the mirror image.


********.

I checked the Massachusetts Elections Division. For some reason
they don't have county returns for 2006 for the Governor's race.
But they do for 2002. You're in Berkshire County, right? Well,
that was Romney's worst county in that election and still 34% of
the voters where you live chose him. Which is not great, but is
not the single digit vision you present above and represents less
of an extreme that you'd get in just about any other state. It is
certainly less than the last governor's race where I live.
Looking at that election I would say that Massachusetts is more
politically and geographically uniform than most states, and
Romney managed to win there.

I'm not for a second saying that Massachusetts doesn't swing left.
And you certainly appear to live in an area that is at one end of
the political spectrum. But I would say that if I were interested
in getting an accurate reading on where the political median is,
you are not the guy I would consult.

Bob Schwartz
 
Bill C wrote:
> MoveOn lobbying to shield Glover from responsibility for his actions:
> http://civic.moveon.org/mediacorps/mediacorps11.html
> I guess this one didn't get to Howard.
> Bill C


I didn't know that. And now that I know, I still don't
care.

I have a limited amount of outrage. I have to ration
it carefully to keep from going nuts.

You, on the other hand, seems to groove on outrage. It
seems to have some therapeutic effect for you. Even so,
there are lots of things that feel good in the short
term that are not healthy in the long term. If the
stuff that MoveOn does pisses you off, you should stop
going to their site.

Last night I got the lights out and went for a ride. As
I was going out the door I told my wife that Cameron
Mathison was toast, that he was not going to survive
that 2x4 of a cha-cha that he put up the other night.

I had forgotten how much fun it is to sweep the
roadside with the helmet light as I ride. There are a
lot of critters there that are watching you go by. What
was weird was that I saw two dogs, and my first thought
about each was that I need to get ready to sprint. But
both were in the middle of something that required
silence. Even dogs know how to set priorities.

I rode to an area that reminds me of the Tour of
Flanders. The road runs in between the river and the
bluff, and eventually the river cuts you off. When you
hit the flood plain the road surface turns to ****, and
then the river forces the road up the face of the bluff,
single lane stuff, very steep. An old road that predates
grade standards.

At the top there is a cemetery. I turned off the lights
and stopped for a while to contemplate the river valley.
When I got home I found out that Cameron was gone.

If I didn't ration my outrage, I'd go totally nuts.

Bob Schwartz