OT: Words from a great man

  • Thread starter Kurgan Gringioni
  • Start date



On Nov 14, 11:08 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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


Bob I'm in Hampshire county, Berkshire is far more rural and
conservative. I'm dead smack in the middle of Northampton. Whole
different planet than Berkshire county. Do some looking based around
Northampton, Amherst, Hampshire college, Smith College, Mt. Holyoke,
and you'll get a much clearer picture of here. 30 years ago there was
some semblance of balance, that's long gone.
Rachel Maddow who's now on Air America was here first and is typical,
and actually about in the middle of the left here.
I'm an information junkie, I go nuts without it, but as you said,
there are times I just have to ignore it all and take a break.
I first learned about most of these issues from the local protesters,
dating back to when I was a kid. You'd be hard pressed to find a
single month here without a protest odf some sort, and most are really
reasonable, and I enjoy attempting to discuss issues with them most of
the time, but even Lafferty gave up on the core activist morons here,
and he's not exactly on the right.

Results 1 - 10 of about 13,000 for northampton, amherst, activism.
(0.29 seconds
Bill C
 
On Nov 14, 11:08 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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


Here's a link:
http://tinyurl.com/y7otjw

As for the work being better than ****** off, I disagree. They want
to fuse my lower back, I've had the knees, shoulders, and a wrist
done, some twice, and most of them are miserable most days. I don't
think outrage causes arthritis and torn up joints. I'm convinced that
the biggest factor was doing massive heavy work as a teen, starting
young while the bones and joints were still forming.
To be honest dropping dead of a massive heart attack wouldn't be a
bad thing for me, it's suck for my family and friends, but being in
tons of pain all the time, and almost completely unable to do the
things you love to sucks.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:
>
> To be honest dropping dead of a massive heart attack wouldn't be a
> bad thing for me, it's suck for my family and friends, but being in
> tons of pain all the time, and almost completely unable to do the
> things you love to sucks.
> Bill C
>


Most first heart attacks don't kill, so you'd have arthritis and a
weakened heart. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Bill C wrote:
> Bob I'm in Hampshire county, Berkshire is far more rural and
> conservative. I'm dead smack in the middle of Northampton. Whole
> different planet than Berkshire county. Do some looking based around
> Northampton, Amherst, Hampshire college, Smith College, Mt. Holyoke,
> and you'll get a much clearer picture of here. 30 years ago there was
> some semblance of balance, that's long gone.


You're making my point. Thanks. Berkshire County went 34% for
Romney, ignoring the fringe vote. Hampshire went 36% for Romney.
Look it up, I'm just counting the major party vote:

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/eleres/statewide.htm

If the Republicans held the governor's office for 16 years and
now they're rock bottom, that probably means they're screwing up.
Just like the national Republicans. I don't know anything about
state politics in Massachusetts, but I do know that the natural
order of things for political parties that screw up is to get
their asses kicked until they stop screwing up. If they are on
the sidelines after holding the top elected post for 16 years...
I dunno... sure sounds like they're screwing up. Are you sure the
problem isn't that they're chronic screw ups?

But really, your sense of left/right political balance has
clearly failed you. The political center where you live is a solid
Dem, no doubt. But the political center would consider voting for
a Republican, and maybe has at sometime in the past. That's what
the numbers say.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Nov 14, 6:12 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Bob I'm in Hampshire county, Berkshire is far more rural and
> > conservative. I'm dead smack in the middle of Northampton. Whole
> > different planet than Berkshire county. Do some looking based around
> > Northampton, Amherst, Hampshire college, Smith College, Mt. Holyoke,
> > and you'll get a much clearer picture of here. 30 years ago there was
> > some semblance of balance, that's long gone.

>
> You're making my point. Thanks. Berkshire County went 34% for
> Romney, ignoring the fringe vote. Hampshire went 36% for Romney.
> Look it up, I'm just counting the major party vote:
>
> http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/eleres/statewide.htm
>
> If the Republicans held the governor's office for 16 years and
> now they're rock bottom, that probably means they're screwing up.
> Just like the national Republicans. I don't know anything about
> state politics in Massachusetts, but I do know that the natural
> order of things for political parties that screw up is to get
> their asses kicked until they stop screwing up. If they are on
> the sidelines after holding the top elected post for 16 years...
> I dunno... sure sounds like they're screwing up. Are you sure the
> problem isn't that they're chronic screw ups?
>
> But really, your sense of left/right political balance has
> clearly failed you. The political center where you live is a solid
> Dem, no doubt. But the political center would consider voting for
> a Republican, and maybe has at sometime in the past. That's what
> the numbers say.
>
> Bob Schwartz


Bob check the rep/senate votes, etc... The Republican governors are
exactly a result of your theory. Dukakis was SO bad that we've had a
split until this election. Mass is the bluest of the blue states, and
the Pioneer Valley, where I am, and Cambridge/Boston proper are the
meccas of that.
Our "Republican" governors could've run, and won anywhere else as
moderate democrats at a minimum. Bill Weld was crucified by the nation
Republican party. Romney is a carpet bagger who was basically elected
because he "fixed" the Salt Lake Olympic scandal, and the "Big Dig"
here, the biggest public works project in America was in disaster
mode. He was going to fix it. It didn't happen.
Also the Romney you see on this campaign trail is NOT the one who was
elected here. As he looked towards national office he became much more
"conservative", and moronic as he played to the Republican right. The
reaction to this caused the current even further swing towards one
party rule.

Statewide Office Holders:


Governor Deval Patrick (D)

Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray (D)

Attorney General Martha Coakley (D)

Secretary of State William F. Galvin (D)

State Auditor A. Joseph DeNucci (D)


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/02/25/the_skeleton_in_the_room/

When the dust cleared, and Kerry Healey was back in private life, the
Republicans held no statewide constitutional offices. They are now
outnumbered 7-to-1 in the state Legislature and 12 to nothing in the
state's congressional delegation. (There are a total of 24 Republicans
in the 200-member Massachusetts Legislature. By comparison, redder-
than-red state Mississippi boasts 26 Democrats in its state Senate
alone - the same as the number of Republicans.)

So how was my example BS, especially when I'm in the bluest of the
blue spots.
That pretty well makes MY case that this is the least politcally
diverse spot in the US.
Bill C
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Why not? Stalin had already killed 10-20 million.

>>
>> Few believed it..and the Left in the US, once again..excused it.

>
> Just in this thread we have several people denying the mass murders.
> Socialists will ALWAYS forgive "mistakes" by Socialists under any
> circumstances. But they will never forgive even arguably correct things
> that can be made to look bad by Capitalists.
>


I once knew a wacko who did that denial thing on Stalin's behalf. I
never understood why. If Khrushchev and Gorbachev said Stalin did it,
why would anyone else bother to deny it?

In truth, it's a bit difficult to distinguish who it was that killed
some of those people. If a mass grave is found what was once German
occupied Soviet land, who gets credit, ****** or Stalin? But that's just
a minor difficulty in keeping score. For someone like Stalin, a couple
million more or less is no big difference.
 
On Nov 14, 1:28 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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).
>

Howard I'll run through this stuff.
Noone in their right mind thinks the Right gives a **** about
people's welfare and Human Rights. It's about ideology, power, and
profit. They pander a bit around elections, but don't crusade on it,
as the Left does, so while the right usually meets the low
expectations, the Left come off as total hypocrites.
If they cared as much as they keep telling us, the philosophy of the
scumbag wouldn't matter. Sure as hell doesn't to me, or you. Your
absolutely right that the Right continues to support their people, but
again they don't give a flying taco about people and that's always
been pretty clear.

> 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.

How about Vietnam's still terrible ratings, and we wont reopen the
debate on just how big a purge/genocide there was there. And the
support for Castro is still undying, and growing again as far as I can
tell.
>
> > 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.


Yep, and we've discussed this several times. There's absolutely no
need for me to be an "Air America" "Dittohead" since there are more
than enough here already, whereas the other viewpoint is seriously
underrepresented. I don't think it's really hard to find out my
opinion of the Right Wing nutjobs either by what I've said here. it's
just that everyone else is saying it, and the Left gets a free pass
here for the most part.
>
> > 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?).
>

I really don't think that the Liberals are ignorant is a good
argument. I first learned about most of these people, and issues from
protesters here who new exactly who they were. They were well
informed, and spread their version of the information very well. I
disagreed with them most of the time, but almost always talked with
them, and then went and found the rest of the sides to the stories.

> 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).


I'm not crusading in the name of TV show "X". The left is crusading
for Human Rights, etc...My problem is that they are incredibly
selective in who they get indignant at based, not on the actions, but
the ideology and words.

>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Safe when used as directed...
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?


Basically I'd say it's pretty simple to boil down. I like to make the
opposing argument. I think that there are a few times when National
interest overrides the human rights records of people we work with,
when the change would be a disaster to US interests, not when the
people with the horrible records who get a free pass also hate the US.
I don't like the fact that the left has consitantly since the 60s
supported people who hate the US, given them free passes, attacked
their friends and neighbors who went to fight and die, whether they
wanted to or not, for the US government. Now they want us to believe
they care about us? They still think we're morons who were too stupid
to be able to find some other job.
They claim to care about the little people, but, at least here, are
total elitists.
The Right demonizes the Left, and some of it sticks because of the
Left's historical treatment of the troops, particularly the Vietnam
vets, their support for people who hate us, and Carter's gutting of
the Intelligence community.
The Right has a whole other set of scumbag traits, which are
expressed here quite well usually, and frequently with my support. Why
is it that a small handful of people criticizing the Left, at least
one, though I may have an over positive impression of myself here,
rationally.
I try very hard to make sure it's not personal. Just because we
disagree doesn't make anyone else better or worse than me, or anyone
else as a person. People are people, and I don't know of any real
scumbags who post here. I'd really prefer that Tom stick to making
points, and not going straight to abuse. That kind of anger isn't a
good trait. Gunner would like to hang all of you for voting Liberal.
Enough said there.
My pet peeves with the right are less pressing than those with the
left, primarily because most of the US is smart enough to distance
themselves from the real right wing nutjobs. Present administration
excluded. The ONLY way possible to lose the last election to Bush was
to run a Massachusetts scumbag who made his politcal career by
trashing our troops, and this during a war.
I'm not even sure that they can pull it out this time, though I have
an incredibly hard time seeing them blow it again. Romney is the least
offensive of the Republican bunch and he's NO prize, but the Democrats
have picked the most divisive figure in US politics, other than those
in the current administration, as their best bet to win. The rest of
the Democrats are hopeless at best.
I think Hillary beats Romney by a small margin, and I'd say God help
us, but that'll be banned in the first 100 days.
Bill C
 
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Stalin had already killed 10-20 million.
>>>
>>> Few believed it..and the Left in the US, once again..excused it.

>>
>> Just in this thread we have several people denying the mass murders.
>> Socialists will ALWAYS forgive "mistakes" by Socialists under any
>> circumstances. But they will never forgive even arguably correct things
>> that can be made to look bad by Capitalists.
>>

>
> I once knew a wacko who did that denial thing on Stalin's behalf. I never
> understood why. If Khrushchev and Gorbachev said Stalin did it, why would
> anyone else bother to deny it?
>
> In truth, it's a bit difficult to distinguish who it was that killed some
> of those people. If a mass grave is found what was once German occupied
> Soviet land, who gets credit, ****** or Stalin? But that's just a minor
> difficulty in keeping score. For someone like Stalin, a couple million
> more or less is no big difference.


Here's something to consider - when the Soviets took over a lot of prisoner
camps in the German occupied eastern Europe a whole lot of those in those
camps simply disappeared without a trace.

But then the Liberals would forgive Stalin for anything because he was a
socialist.
 
"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If the Republicans held the governor's office for 16 years and
> now they're rock bottom, that probably means they're screwing up.


I take it you've never been to Massachusetts and never asked how Kennedy
could kill a woman in a drunken car wreck, not report it for half a day and
be rewarded with Senator For Life.
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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).


Pete, if you're going to comment on these things at least know something
about it. The Mujahadeen were not "a" group but a loose association of a lot
of groups. The Taliban were only one that actually worked to overthrow
everyone else while the rest of the Mujahadeen's members worked to defeat
the Soviets. Pretending that this was a single entity is completely
incorrect.

>> 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.


Indeed, but as some have said, most socialisms that managed to obtain a way
to retain power were no better than communism in the long run.

> Socialism assumes that the richer people in society will pay for the
> poorer people to have certain basics.


Funny and all this time I thought that socialism essentially attempts to put
EVERYONE on the same economic level with the exception of those holding the
reins of power.
 
Bill C wrote:
> Also the Romney you see on this campaign trail is NOT the one who was
> elected here. As he looked towards national office he became much more
> "conservative", and moronic as he played to the Republican right. The
> reaction to this caused the current even further swing towards one
> party rule.


Screwing up was one of my points, remember? When you screw up in
politics you get your ass kicked. National Republicans are setting
new standards for associating the word 'Republican' with the phrase
'screw up'. What you are seeing is the natural order of political
flow.

> So how was my example BS, especially when I'm in the bluest of the
> blue spots.
> That pretty well makes MY case that this is the least politcally
> diverse spot in the US.
> Bill C


For one thing you are looking at a low point of a process that runs
in cycles.

As I look at the county returns from the 2002 governors election
it's pretty clear to me that you guys are much more uniform than most
states. And certainly more uniform than Wisconsin. Both Dane County
and the City of Milwaukee lean further left than where you are. And
it takes a pretty significant statewide Dem margin for any Dem to
crack 30% in some of the ring counties around Milwaukee.

Oh, and the statewide elections are really a much better indicator of
a political pulse once you get into areas where the split is around
2 to 1. Local office candidates from the minority party in places like
that tend to be cranks because rational people have better things to
do than **** away time and $$$ on lost causes.

While you live in an area that leans decidedly left, no way in freakin'
hell do you live in the bluest of the blue spots. That you seem unable
to accept this reinforces a point that I've made in the past, that
there really is no point to political discussion here.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Nov 14, 10:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Also the Romney you see on this campaign trail is NOT the one who was
> > elected here. As he looked towards national office he became much more
> > "conservative", and moronic as he played to the Republican right. The
> > reaction to this caused the current even further swing towards one
> > party rule.

>
> Screwing up was one of my points, remember? When you screw up in
> politics you get your ass kicked. National Republicans are setting
> new standards for associating the word 'Republican' with the phrase
> 'screw up'. What you are seeing is the natural order of political
> flow.
>
> > So how was my example BS, especially when I'm in the bluest of the
> > blue spots.
> > That pretty well makes MY case that this is the least politcally
> > diverse spot in the US.
> > Bill C

>
> For one thing you are looking at a low point of a process that runs
> in cycles.
>
> As I look at the county returns from the 2002 governors election
> it's pretty clear to me that you guys are much more uniform than most
> states. And certainly more uniform than Wisconsin. Both Dane County
> and the City of Milwaukee lean further left than where you are. And
> it takes a pretty significant statewide Dem margin for any Dem to
> crack 30% in some of the ring counties around Milwaukee.
>
> Oh, and the statewide elections are really a much better indicator of
> a political pulse once you get into areas where the split is around
> 2 to 1. Local office candidates from the minority party in places like
> that tend to be cranks because rational people have better things to
> do than **** away time and $$$ on lost causes.
>
> While you live in an area that leans decidedly left, no way in freakin'
> hell do you live in the bluest of the blue spots. That you seem unable
> to accept this reinforces a point that I've made in the past, that
> there really is no point to political discussion here.
>
> Bob Schwartz


That you have picked a single point, which is an explainable
aberration, while ignoring all the others to make a point is amazing.
I guess that Mississippi is really a blue state too.
It's always easier to make an argument with less information.
I sincerely hope I NEVER hear you complain about Red States, because
if Mass, and this location in particular isn't blue, then there are NO
red states, either.
I stand amazed, or you're intentionally being obtuse to try and make
the point that political discussion is futile. I'd disagree with that
too, because I get a lot of good info that I'd have missed out on by
not keeping an open mind to other people here.
Been interesting talking to you on this. You sure this isn't
generated by an alternative to the "Kunich bot"?
Bill C
 
On Nov 14, 10:23 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 10:06 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > Also the Romney you see on this campaign trail is NOT the one who was
> > > elected here. As he looked towards national office he became much more
> > > "conservative", and moronic as he played to the Republican right. The
> > > reaction to this caused the current even further swing towards one
> > > party rule.

>
> > Screwing up was one of my points, remember? When you screw up in
> > politics you get your ass kicked. National Republicans are setting
> > new standards for associating the word 'Republican' with the phrase
> > 'screw up'. What you are seeing is the natural order of political
> > flow.

>
> > > So how was my example BS, especially when I'm in the bluest of the
> > > blue spots.
> > > That pretty well makes MY case that this is the least politcally
> > > diverse spot in the US.
> > > Bill C

>
> > For one thing you are looking at a low point of a process that runs
> > in cycles.

>
> > As I look at the county returns from the 2002 governors election
> > it's pretty clear to me that you guys are much more uniform than most
> > states. And certainly more uniform than Wisconsin. Both Dane County
> > and the City of Milwaukee lean further left than where you are. And
> > it takes a pretty significant statewide Dem margin for any Dem to
> > crack 30% in some of the ring counties around Milwaukee.

>
> > Oh, and the statewide elections are really a much better indicator of
> > a political pulse once you get into areas where the split is around
> > 2 to 1. Local office candidates from the minority party in places like
> > that tend to be cranks because rational people have better things to
> > do than **** away time and $$$ on lost causes.

>
> > While you live in an area that leans decidedly left, no way in freakin'
> > hell do you live in the bluest of the blue spots. That you seem unable
> > to accept this reinforces a point that I've made in the past, that
> > there really is no point to political discussion here.

>
> > Bob Schwartz

>
> That you have picked a single point, which is an explainable
> aberration, while ignoring all the others to make a point is amazing.
> I guess that Mississippi is really a blue state too.
> It's always easier to make an argument with less information.
> I sincerely hope I NEVER hear you complain about Red States, because
> if Mass, and this location in particular isn't blue, then there are NO
> red states, either.
> I stand amazed, or you're intentionally being obtuse to try and make
> the point that political discussion is futile. I'd disagree with that
> too, because I get a lot of good info that I'd have missed out on by
> not keeping an open mind to other people here.
> Been interesting talking to you on this. You sure this isn't
> generated by an alternative to the "Kunich bot"?
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Just to pile on a bit more:
http://www.epodunk.com/top10/liberal/index.html

ePodunk study identifies the most liberal communities in the U.S.
For all those frustrated Democrats who are considering a move to
Canada, we offer a few closer alternatives.

Our list of "Most Liberal Places in America" is based not on opinion
polls, which have come under fire in recent elections, but on votes,
political contributions and demographics. The rankings, at right, show
nationwide picks by the size of the community and statewide rankings
for 29 states.



LIBERAL COMMUNITIES
BIG CITIES
(100,000 or more)
Boston, MA
Cambridge, MA
Berkeley, CA
Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA
New Haven, CT
Providence, RI
New York, NY
Baltimore, MD
Seattle, WA
MEDIUM CITIES
(25,000-99,999)
Northampton, MA
Somerville, MA
Arlington, MA
Watertown, MA
Santa Cruz, CA
Alameda, CA
Ithaca, NY
Portland, ME
East Palo Alto, CA
Chelsea, MA

Bill C
 
On Nov 14, 5:49 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.


So, there are reasons for this (but I don't want
to get into a discussion of plumbing). My joke (it
was intended as a joke) was that women might refuse
to use the men's room on grounds of cleanliness, but
not that it actually would be so much less clean.
I'm sure we've all known both men and women who
stereotype the opposite sex both fairly and unfairly.

Anyway, I think we might have uncovered one of the
reasons people were so scared of the ERA: men needed
to protect their clean bathrooms (with short lines!)

Ben
 
On Nov 14, 5:59 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> So how was my example BS, especially when I'm in the bluest of the
> blue spots.
> That pretty well makes MY case that this is the least politcally
> diverse spot in the US.


There are enough politically non diverse spots
in the US that I think one would have a hard time
figuring out which ones were the least. Berkeley,
Santa Cruz, Lubbock, Northampton ... Even in those
places, there's often 20-30% of people that vote
the other way. It's just that the really vocal
people are all on one side. That's life. You can
get agitated about their Stalinist tendencies (on
either side), but you can remember that most local
politics is kind of goofy - really good people often
rise above the City Council level, which is why city
councils, counties etc are often full of hacks.
Sometimes, you gotta let go and enjoy the scenery.
Okay, maybe not so much in Lubbock.

Ben
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? Stalin had already killed 10-20 million.
>>>>
>>>> Few believed it..and the Left in the US, once again..excused it.
>>>
>>> Just in this thread we have several people denying the mass murders.
>>> Socialists will ALWAYS forgive "mistakes" by Socialists under any
>>> circumstances. But they will never forgive even arguably correct
>>> things that can be made to look bad by Capitalists.
>>>

>>
>> I once knew a wacko who did that denial thing on Stalin's behalf. I
>> never understood why. If Khrushchev and Gorbachev said Stalin did it,
>> why would anyone else bother to deny it?
>>
>> In truth, it's a bit difficult to distinguish who it was that killed
>> some of those people. If a mass grave is found what was once German
>> occupied Soviet land, who gets credit, ****** or Stalin? But that's
>> just a minor difficulty in keeping score. For someone like Stalin, a
>> couple million more or less is no big difference.

>
> Here's something to consider - when the Soviets took over a lot of
> prisoner camps in the German occupied eastern Europe a whole lot of
> those in those camps simply disappeared without a trace.


Yes, I've read that as well. It is consistent with everything else
Stalin did. It is consistent with the Soviet Army stalling outside of
Warsaw, waiting for the Germans to finish up in the ghetto before moving in.

> But then the Liberals would forgive Stalin for anything because he was a
> socialist.


I've only known one person who ever did that and he was a special case.
A bigshot in the local communist party of a college town. I don't
remember which communist party, I wouldn't know the difference. He was
out for any attention he could get, even if it was negative. Imagine the
mentality of someone organizing marches supporting Iran and the
Ayatollah Khomeini in 1980, during the heart of the "hostage crises".
This was a guy who did that, only to complain about the persecution he
suffered because of it. As if he didn't know exactly what he was doing.
As if he didn't revel in that martydom.

The martyrdom of being the only right person in the middle of a sea of
dumbasses is a more exclusive club than merely being "liberal". You
might think LESS exclusive, but I'm talking about someone who took their
martyrdom seriously. This guy was a bigger whack job than your Bill
O'Reillys or Michael Moores. I think that lands him in a pretty small ward.
 
Bill C wrote:
> I sincerely hope I NEVER hear you complain about Red States, because
> if Mass, and this location in particular isn't blue, then there are NO
> red states, either.
> I stand amazed, or you're intentionally being obtuse to try and make
> the point that political discussion is futile.


Dumbass,

- I never said Massachusetts or where you live isn't blue. What I
said is that it isn't as far left as you constantly portray it.
That's what the numbers say. Argue with the numbers.

- You are making the point about the futility of political
discussion much more effectively than I ever could. Please pass
along my compliments to your author.

Bob Schwartz
 
In article <4c0a040d-917d-4389-8e0e-ca2ff9e2e842@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 1:28 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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).
> >

> Howard I'll run through this stuff.
> Noone in their right mind thinks the Right gives a **** about people's welfare and
> Human Rights. It's about ideology, power, and profit. They pander a bit around
> elections, but don't crusade on it, as the Left does, so while the right usually
> meets the low expectations, the Left come off as total hypocrites.
> If they cared as much as they keep telling us, the philosophy of the scumbag
> wouldn't matter. Sure as hell doesn't to me, or you. Your absolutely right that the
> Right continues to support their people, but again they don't give a flying taco
> about people and that's always been pretty clear.


Well, that's a fairly blunt and honest evaluation. I guess I don't really agree
with you so much on the idea of lefties coming across as hypocrites, for reasons I've
already mentioned.

> > 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
> > an al Qaeda recruiting aid). So I have a tough time seeing where the "left" owes
> > much responsibility for the Cambodian slaughter.

>
> How about Vietnam's still terrible ratings, and we wont reopen the debate on just
> how big a purge/genocide there was there. And the support for Castro is still
> undying, and growing again as far as I can tell.


Again, I think there's greater support for the Cuban people than Castro. At least
that's been my experience. You might be surprised to know that there are lefties who
are complaining about some of the crackdowns on dissidents.

> > 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.

>
> Yep, and we've discussed this several times. There's absolutely no need for me to
> be an "Air America" "Dittohead" since there are more than enough here already,
> whereas the other viewpoint is seriously underrepresented. I don't think it's really hard to find out my
> opinion of the Right Wing nutjobs either by what I've said here. it's just that
> everyone else is saying it, and the Left gets a free pass here for the most part.


Oh, I recognize that you'll play the devil's advocate in here, but, on the other
hand, if the people who are more conservative can't hack it, that's kind of their
problem. I do realize that there are more people of a liberal bent than conservatives
in here and that can make it seem like they (conservatives) are being ganged up on.

> >
> > > 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?).
> >

> I really don't think that the Liberals are ignorant is a good argument. I first
> learned about most of these people, and issues from protesters here who new exactly
> who they were. They were well informed, and spread their version of the information
> very well. I disagreed with them most of the time, but almost always talked with
> them, and then went and found the rest of the sides to the stories.


My experience was a bit different, then. The people I was around were not very
specific about *who* was doing what in the anti-apartheid groups, as there were at
least twenty going. Mugabe came to the fore during the negotiations. He didn't have
much of a track record to be judged by, I think. He certainly has turned out to be
complete ****.

Oh, by the way, that link you had to MoveOn for Danny Glover is from early to mid
'03. I'm not real certain when he actually met Chavez, but at that time Glover was
mostly known in leftie circles as a guy who was willing ot speak out vigorously
against the impending war with Iraq. That was what the MoveOn bulletin was about.

> The left is crusading for Human Rights, etc...My problem is that they are
> incredibly selective in who they get indignant at based, not on the actions, but
> the ideology and words.


I don't really agree with that. Getting worked up over people in some foreign
country being slaughtered by a government that our govt. supports *is* getting
indignant over actions.

> Basically I'd say it's pretty simple to boil down. I like to make the
> opposing argument. I think that there are a few times when National
> interest overrides the human rights records of people we work with,
> when the change would be a disaster to US interests, not when the
> people with the horrible records who get a free pass also hate the US.


I can't help thinking that tolerating repressive regimes who kill their own people
becasue that regime is in some way assisting our national interests is really kind od
bad. In the long run, using our influence to perhaps get those regimes to support our
national interests while not killing an entire village and dumping their bodies down
a well seems like it'd have a greater positive effect on our national interests.

> I try very hard to make sure it's not personal. Just because we disagree doesn't
> make anyone else better or worse than me, or anyone else as a person. People are
> people, and I don't know of any real scumbags who post here. I'd really prefer that
> Tom stick to making points, and not going straight to abuse. That kind of anger
> isn't a good trait. Gunner would like to hang all of you for voting Liberal.
> Enough said there.


Keeping the discussion civil and not personal is great and I'm glad we (and that's
a generalized "we") can do that. That aspect of a discussion is something that has
escaped TK's notice. I doubt anyone would get so worked up about him if he could
simply say what he thinks without making sure to belittle and smear the other person.

--
tanx,
Howard

Safe when used as directed...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Bertrand tapped his mom-in-law. Another great frenchman!


If he was so great why didn't he tap his mom-in-laws granddaughter ?
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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).

>
> Pete, if you're going to comment on these things at least know something
> about it. The Mujahadeen were not "a" group but a loose association of a lot
> of groups. The Taliban were only one that actually worked to overthrow
> everyone else while the rest of the Mujahadeen's members worked to defeat
> the Soviets. Pretending that this was a single entity is completely
> incorrect.


Yes, that was a bit badly written.. as you say, it was a loose
association of groups, started off relatively moderate and acquired a
lot of Islamic-fundamentalist nutjobs who the US (via Pakistan) paid
to transport into the region and arm. But, nevertheless it did include
Bin Laden himself and the seeds of his Al-Qaida terrorists, it did
include the Taliban. It did also include some relatively harmless
groups (opium farmers and the like).

> >> 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.

>
> Indeed, but as some have said, most socialisms that managed to obtain a way
> to retain power were no better than communism in the long run.


Name one.

> > Socialism assumes that the richer people in society will pay for the
> > poorer people to have certain basics.

>
> Funny and all this time I thought that socialism essentially attempts to put
> EVERYONE on the same economic level with the exception of those holding the
> reins of power.


That's communism (sort of). I did say it was easy to get confused,
evidently I was right. Socialist policies usually come out of
democratic elections, so the people in power are temporary and don't
generally get much out of it (in fact, since they usually don't have
major corporate interests they can't even divert government money into
their own pockets via a corporation - that's a right wing thing in
general).

If you're thinking about pretty much any rule-by-force country which
at the moment has 'socialist' in the name, then that is simply the
local dictator trying to look good internationally and has no relation
to his policies, same way that countries with 'democratic' in the name
virtually always aren't.

Pete