Combined thread of Stimulus Reports & US Foreign Policy

[nyuk nyuk]

Original thread title: Liberals, Is This True?

Ahead of Election, Obama Stops Releasing ‘Stimulus’ Reports (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ahead-election-obama-stops-releasing-stimulus-reports_654968.html)

(See link above for whole article)

The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects. But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012. Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011...

Section 1513 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus”) explicitly states, “In consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers shall submit quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives that detail the impact of programs funded through covered funds on employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic indicators.” (The head of the Council of Economic Advisors, currently Alan Krueger, is appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and works within the Executive Office of the President. He is the president’s chief economic adviser.)

Indeed, the old reports that the administration released begin, “As part of the unprecedented accountability and transparency provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) was charged with providing to Congress quarterly reports on the effects of the Recovery Act on overall economic activity, and on employment in particular.”

Section 1513 of the ARRA further specifies, “The first report…shall be submitted not later than 45 days after the end of the first full quarter following the date of enactment of this Act….The last report required to be submitted…shall apply to the quarter in which the [Recovery Accountability and Transparency] Board terminates under section 1530.” Section 1530 declares, “The Board shall terminate on September 30, 2013.”

In other words, the Obama administration is required by law to submit quarterly reports on the “stimulus” through the third quarter of 2013. Yet the administration has apparently found it more convenient to stop after the second quarter of 2011 — more than two years early. Or perhaps it has just decided to put the release of these reports on hold until after the election. Either way, the Obama administration is now in violation of the president’s most prominent piece of legislation this side of Obamacare.

[barryr]

But it must be a mistake. We are told the Obama economy is a smashing success. But maybe not since Obama has not gotten a budget passed and has sidestepped the Constitution more than once and the media has largely pretended it doesn't happen.

[DBruleU]

For effs sake, I already posted this. Got no response so it must be true. Can't spin it.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=108113

[Blart]

Funny how all the conservatives just realize this now, so much so that they're double-posting about it, when the reports supposedly stopped in early 2011.

A year and a half between then and now - and suddenly they all know at once? Talking points, my friend.


Now tell me what the Congressional Budget Office said about the stimulus. Glenn Beck isn't going to bring it up.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

vote for ohbummer 4 more of the same old tire stuff more scandals less freedoms more debt more restrictive internet. less national defense , more embassies destroyed , less respect from our allies ,more love from russia and our enemies,, less jobs , more occupy tards, more blood on obamas not qualified to be presidents hands, higher taxes for everyone so vote odumbass this year

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

obummer telling lies and broken promises since 2008

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

and yet some people keep running back to him like abused woman who stands by her man with the broken arm and black eye saying i love my man before being the bitch again over and over

[Blart]

All conservatives were independently reading the stimulus reports on their own. The same ones the CBO and top economists declared to be a success for saving or adding 3 million or more jobs.

Then, after 4 quarters without a new report, the conservatives waited two weeks and 1 day, then all of a sudden started double-posting stories and blogging about the topic.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ESFVnZZegXs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[nyuk nyuk]

For effs sake, I already posted this. Got no response so it must be true. Can't spin it.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=108113

Sorry dude, I didn't see your thread, otherwise I'd have bumped it. I don't read the Weekly Standard but once in a blue moon so I didn't see it.

[Blart]

Is this the report - the one "required by law", that conservatives are referring to?

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43551

Looks up to date to me.

[nyuk nyuk]

All conservatives were independently reading the stimulus reports on their own. The same ones the CBO and top economists declared to be a success for saving or adding 3 million or more jobs.

Then, after 4 quarters without a new report, the conservatives waited two weeks and 1 day, then all of a sudden started double-posting stories and blogging about the topic.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ESFVnZZegXs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Center for American Progress. Sounds impressive. I'll be right on that. I didn't ask a "progressive" opinion as to whether or not the stimulus worked; that is not the topic of this thread.

You say "all of a sudden started double-posting stories" like it was some plotted strategy rather than an accident. That's kind of conspiracy theoristic of you.

Since however, according to the stimulus package itself, reports are to be released regularly and have not been, why is this the case? This is the topic of this thread.

[nyuk nyuk]

vote for ohbummer 4 more of the same old tire stuff more scandals less freedoms more debt more restrictive internet. less national defense , more embassies destroyed , less respect from our allies ,more love from russia and our enemies,, less jobs , more occupy tards, more blood on obamas not qualified to be presidents hands, higher taxes for everyone so vote odumbass this year

I'm most impressed with the Jimmy Carter-like foreign policy. Jimmy gave Iran to the Mullahs and Obama is giving Egypt to the Islamic Brotherhood.

Golf claps all around. We're still dealing with Carter's **** in Iran to this day.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

I'm most impressed with the Jimmy Carter-like foreign policy. Jimmy gave Iran to the Mullahs and Obama is giving Egypt to the Islamic Brotherhood.

Golf claps all around. We're still dealing with Carter's **** in Iran to this day.

GREAT CARTER 2.0 what this country needs only thjis time thanks to our meddling and not having a plan we now got 2 more irans on our hands maybe 3 if we screw with syria
does anyone understand if we up and leave asap the countries we invaded or helped topple the governments will degrade into a terrorist state. i rather have a brutal dictator than a terrorist regime run by wacked out warlords who could shoot nukes off like bottle rockets.
these aint colonist from the 1770s who desire freedom and independence from a monarchy .
these are people who are one step away from descending into a terrorist state. you either got a dictator ship with a army with guns who at least dont send terrorists to the us or our embassies or a terrorist anarchy who will attack and kill usa and our allies and the citizens . so if you invade a or discretly topple a government you best have a plan in place to stabilize that country, til you can get it to a semi decent country like saudi arabia

[W*GS]

Jimmy gave Iran to the Mullahs and Obama is giving Egypt to the Islamic Brotherhood.

Your knowledge of history is atrocious.

[nyuk nyuk]

This Weekly Standard article cites the White House's website where it has been apparently mirroring CBO reports.

If you look at http://www.whitehouse.gov, you'll see the site is clearly geared toward Obama's reelection efforts. Upon first inspection of the site, it's irritating that this much digging has to be done to find these ARRA reports to begin with. If you use the search function here to search quarterly ARRA reports, it seems that the Weekly Standard writer is correct in that nothing has been posted there since February 2012's 8th Quarterly Report dated Dec. 9, 2011. These reports are in numerical order. I cannot find a 9th or 10th Quarterly Report on WhiteHouse.gov. The most recent I can find there is indeed the 8th.

Now if you go to http://www.cbo.gov that Blart linked to, reports 9 and 10 can be found. An answer to this may be found in page 2 of the Weekly Standard article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ahead-election-obama-stops-releasing-stimulus-reports_654968.html?page=2),

The numbers have gotten progressively worse with each passing quarter. By the April 2010 report, according to that same method of estimating the stimulus’s effects, the tally was up to $167,000 spent for each job added or saved. By the July 2010 report, the tally was up to $190,000. By November 2010, it was up to $206,000. By March 2011, it was up to $242,000. By July 2011, it was up to $278,000 (at which point the White House objected to my highlighting its own numbers, and I responded). And by the December 2011 report (which covered the stimulus’s effects through the second quarter of 2011), it was up to $317,000 — $317,000 of taxpayers’ money that was borrowed and spent for each job that was added or saved.

Aside from the White House apparently disputing with CBO figures, it's entirely possible the White House simply decided to let unattractive numbers vanish down the memory hole. So it could be reasonably concluded that the numbers were indeed "not released" at least in the sense of the White House's website, but obviously the CBO did release these figures for April-June 2012 (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-23-2012-RecoveryAct.pdf). Here is Jan-March 2012 (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-25-Impact_of_ARRA.pdf).

They're just obscure and hidden in a sense, so the article is half right. I don't know if the author was ignorant of this or chose to exaggerate, because in my opinion he need not have exaggerated. The evidence is there that the WH chose to not publish more recent reports.

I'm no economist, but an interesting paragraph on page 8 from the April-June 2012 Quarterly Report #10 reads,

ARRA’s Long-Run Effects

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic
effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run,
CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after
2016. But CBO expects that the legislation will have no
long-term effects on employment because the U.S. economy
will have a high rate of use of its labor resources in
the long run.

An excerpt from the Jan-Mar 2012 Quarterly Report #9 page 1 reads,

When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee
on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget
deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and
2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the
2009–2019 period will amount to about $831 billion. By
CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in
fiscal year 2010, and more than 90 percent of ARRA’s
budgetary impact was realized by the end of March 2012.

If that's the case, then, whatever benefits the stimulus have are basically over with and we are barely getting back into the neighborhood of Bush's lowest joblessness figures, assuming the ones released most recently were accurately tabulated.

That's not so impressive.

[Rohirrim]

OP is a troll. Please don't feed.

[nyuk nyuk]

Your knowledge of history is atrocious.

A silly swipe if I ever saw one.

The Shah always stated that Carter's pressuring him to loosen control of dissenting Islamists under Carter's hand-wringing of "human rights" issues and threat of cuts of financial and political support is what directly led to the weakening of the Shah and the Mullahs taking over. It goes without saying that if you withdraw support of someone keeping subversive elements in check that those subversive elements may come to the fore, and this is exactly what happened. You'll see Carter repeated this garbage with Somoza in Nicaragua when he was fighting off the Marxist-Leninst Sandinistas. Those types are repressed in those countries with good reason. We're now seeing the same again with Obama chastising Mubarak over the years he repressed Islamist nutjobs and now that Mubarak has lost support of his most important allies over this political repression, it has allowed for the Muslim Brotherhood to all but take over, and I'm sure sooner than later their takeover will be complete. Those Cairo crowds were packed with Islamists as they were in Tehran, and as usual in both cases, they were friends with the secular left.

Democrats have given up Iran, Nicaragua, and now Egypt. Congrats.

Obama's "Shah Problem"
President Obama is doing what Jimmy Carter did with Iran in 1978. Uh-oh. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2011/01/obamas_shah_problem.html)

[nyuk nyuk]

OP is a troll. Please don't feed.

Except I've posted my own research on the matter here - with source links - thus how can I be "trolling"?

Rather I suspect this troll claim is how you have decided to not address the issue while trying to undercut the thread at the same time.

Sorry, that's as transparent as it is juvenile. :cowgirl:

[W*GS]

'nyuk nyuk' is playing the same rationalization game that rewarded scumbag dictators around the globe for decades, courtesy the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Then, when these scumbags are overthrown, the people don't exactly love the US. And dicks like 'nyuk nyuk' wonder why...

[nyuk nyuk]

'nyuk nyuk' is playing the same rationalization game that rewarded scumbag dictators around the globe for decades, courtesy the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Then, when these scumbags are overthrown, the people don't exactly love the US. And ***** like 'nyuk nyuk' wonder why...

And if this is the case, state your argument rather than calling names.

I'm not rationalizing anything, the simple fact is that such people are needed in certain resource-rich parts of the globe, especially. There is no rational reason that Islamists or Marxists should be able to control vital resources simply due to some misplaced fluffy liberal notion of anti-despotism which isn't even intelligently applied to these situations. Supporting pro-Western elements in keeping hostile totalitarian forces out of power is actually not supporting despotism but is actually keeping it in check, if you care to look at the bigger picture. It seems to me that if one is a so-called progressive, then he would go with the socially progressive elements and not bow in favor of people with views that would be branded as Nazis if they resided in the West. If Nazis are suppressed in the West in the name of basic decency, why not in the East, especially in countries with energies we all need? This doesn't make sense.

Letting the Mullah extremists take over Iran put that country into the Soviet orbit, and letting Marxist-Leninists take over Nicaragua gave the USSR a foothold in the Americas. What kind of rational policy is it to let such groups control these countries? Democratic humanitarianism? These groups are neither. All you've done in the name of liberalism is then is hand countries over to groups far more repressive than the ones we were supporting that kept these creeps in check. What is the benefit of this? Some warm-fuzzy feelings? I'm sorry but if you think a pro-Western modernist government keeping Islamist nut jobs in check is despotic and regressive, your value system may be a tad inverted... Or you may be a liberal.

[Blart]

I don't know if the author was ignorant of this or chose to exaggerate..



The lesson here is that a random guy on an NFL fan messageboard is a better fact checker than the weekly standard.

Please be more aware of your sources.

[nyuk nyuk]

I think the lesson here is that a random guy on an NFL fan messageboard is a better fact checker than the weekly standard.

Please be more aware of your sources.

Please be more aware of forum thread titles: "Is this true?"

Secondly, the author of the Weekly Standard wasn't that far off. You act as if Obama has been exonerated.

[W*GS]

I'm not rationalizing anything

That's all you're doing.

The rank hypocrisy and willingness to overlook horrific abuses of human rights just to keep the world safe for American interests, corporate and otherwise, puts you well down the morality rankings.

Don't you recall how we and the Brits got the Shah installed?

Rationalize away!

[nyuk nyuk]

That's all you're doing.

The rank hypocrisy and willingness to overlook horrific abuses of human rights just to keep the world safe for American interests, corporate and otherwise, puts you well down the morality rankings.

Don't you recall how we and the Brits got the Shah installed?

Rationalize away!

Yes, the Shah came into power after the previous leader chose to break international contracts and threaten access to vital resources those contracts afforded. In a world where resources are limited and not evenly distributed across the globe, such things are sometimes necessary.

As I stated, it is not rational to say you are "pro-human rights" by removing rational actions against anti-human rights extremists from taking the country over. How is removing a secular, pro-Western modern leader knowing that the power vacuum would be filled by either Marxists or Islamists neither of whom gave a rat's ass about "human rights" but would instead repress the ENTIRE population instead of a small sector of it by a pro-Western leader progressive thinking? This makes ZERO sense.

How is repressing Nazi political parties in Europe pro-human rights but it is anti-human rights to repress Islamist militants from controlling natural resources and societies? There is no logic here. It seems apparent that my previous conclusion about the left's infatuation with "human rights" is true: Human rights is a political tool selectively wielded against the West in particular to advance Left interests. It also explains why the Left ally with the likes of Isalmist agitators be they on the streets of Tehran or Paris or Cairo. My enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Left have an interesting gallery of friends and a very screwed up concept of human rights, but then again I concluded years ago the Left's concept of human rights is political window dressing and nothing more, and favoring the Mullahs over people like the Shah proves as much. It also explains why when someone from the Left is asked to defend this behavior, they respond with namecalling.

[W*GS]

My enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Right have an interesting gallery of friends and a very screwed up concept of human rights, but then again I concluded years ago the Right's concept of human rights is political window dressing and nothing more.

Fixed it for ya.

Tell me again how we installed the Shah.

You're startled when the citizens of a country oppressed by a dictator that we supported don't fall down and worship us when they pitch him out. It's a kind of blowback, son. A concept you don't even understand.

[nyuk nyuk]

Fixed it for ya.

Tell me again how we installed the Shah.

You're startled when the citizens of a country oppressed by a dictator that we supported don't fall down and worship us when they pitch him out. It's a kind of blowback, son. A concept you don't even understand.

Already did and this has nothing to do with the topic of the Shah repressing totalitarian elements.

As an ex-leftist I am very familiar with your version of events, as they are standard-issue among the left. I've read it from anywhere from Mother Jones to Chomsky to Parenti.

As far as people in the Islamic world "hating" us, you're making a very broad generalized sweeping statement. Suffice it to say that not everyone in the Muslim world is a flaming Mullah-lover. Indeed, we took enough refugees in from these countries once we let the Islamists take over.

In terms of general hostility against the West, it is the common self-loathing response of Western liberals to blindly assume that all hatreds and criticisms from these people are valid on face value. I tend to think a good chunk of this is the expected butt-hurt response of a civilization that spent most of its 1,400 year history conquering and repressing others is in a position to where those others are now kicking their asses, and they don't like it. A pretty expected response, I suppose. Suffice it to say, if these people were against invasions and conquering, they'd not have been doing it 1,400 years and they certainly wouldn't be speaking of those years wistfully as they often do now. To this day, all too many of these idiots think Spain "belongs" to them.

[W*GS]

Already did and this has nothing to do with the topic of the Shah repressing totalitarian elements.

The Shah repressed lots of people, not just Islamists. That little fact is overlooked by rationalists for authoritarianism, like yourself.

In terms of general hostility against the West, it is the common self-loathing response of Western liberals to blindly assume that all hatreds and criticisms from these people are valid on face value.

Whereas you dismiss them as irrelevant, and are surprised when repressed people don't like being repressed.

All of these guys were A-OK by you...

ABDUL IBN HUSSEIN I
ALBERTO FUJIMORI
ALFREDO FÉLIX CRISTIANI BUKARD
ANASTASIO "TACHITO" SOMOZA DEBAYLE
ANASTASIO SOMOZA GARCIA
ANTONIO SALAZAR DE OLIVEIRA
ANWAR EL-SADAT
ASKAR AKAYEV
AUGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE
BAO DAI
CARLOS PRIO SOCARRAS
CHIANG CHING-KUO
CHIANG KAI-SHEK
CIVILIAN-MILITARY JUNTA, EL SALVADOR
COL. ARTURO ARMANDO MOLINA BARRAZA
COL. CARLOS ENRIQUE CASTILLO ARMAS
COL. ENRIQUE PERALTA AZURDIA
COL. GEORGIOS PAPADOPOULOS
COL. MARCOS PEREZ JIMENEZ
COL. OSMIN AGUIRRE Y SALINAS
COL. OSWALDO LOPEZ ARELLANO
COL.CARLOS ARANA OSORIO
DANIEL ARAP MOI
DENG XIAOPING
DR. GETULIO VARGAS
Dictators Supported by the US
EMOMALI RAHMONOV
FAHD IBN ABDUL-AZIZ AL SAUD
FELIX HOUPHOUET-BOIGNY
FERDINAND MARCOS
FIELD MARSHAL THANOM KITTIKACHORN
FRANCISCO FRANCO
FRANCOIS "PAPA DOC" DUVALIER
FULGENCIO BATISTA
GEN. AGHA MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN
GEN. ALFREDO STROESSNER
GEN. CHUN DOO HWAN
GEN. FERNANDO ROMEO LUCAS GARCIA
GEN. HUGO BANZER SUAREZ
GEN. HUMBERTO DE ALENCAR CASTELLO BRANCO
GEN. IBRAHIM BABANGIDA
GEN. JORGE RAFAEL VIDELA
GEN. JORGE UBICO CASTANEDA
GEN. JOSE EFRAIN RIOS MONTT
GEN. JOSE MIGUEL YDIGORAS FUENTES
GEN. LON NOL
GEN. MANUEL ANTONIO MORENA NORIEGA
GEN. MOHAMMAD ZIA UL-HAQ
GEN. MOHAMMED AYUB KHAN
GEN. NGUYEN KHANH
GEN. NGUYEN VAN THIEU
GEN. OMAR HERRERA-TORRIJOS
GEN. PARK CHUNG HEE
GEN. RENE BARRIENTOS ORTUNO
GEN. SANI ABACHA
GERARDO MACHADO MORALES
GNASSINGBE ETIENNE EYADEMA
HAILE SELASSIE (RAS TAFARI)
HASSAN II
HASTINGS KAMUZU BANDA
HOSNI MUBARAK
IAN SMITH
ISLAM A. KARIMOV
JEAN-CLAUDE "BABY DOC" DUVALIER
JUNTA, EL SALVADOR
LAURENT-DÉSIRÉ KABILA
LEE KUAN YEW
MAJ. GEN. SITIVENI RABUKA
MANUEL ESTRADA CABRERA
MARCO VINICIO CEREZO ARÉVALO
MARSHAL LUANG PIBUL SONGGRAM
MAXIMILIANO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ
MILITARY JUNTA / LT. GEN. RAOUL CEDRAS, GEN. PHILIPPE BIAMBY and LT. COL. MICHEL-JOSEPH FRANCO
MOBUTU SESE SEKO
MOHAMED SUHARTO
MOHAMMED REZA PAHLAVI
MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE
NGO DINH DIEM
NGUYEN CAO KY
NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF
PIETER WILLEM BOTHA
POL POT
RAFAEL LEONIDAS TRUJILLO
ROBERTO SUAZO CORDOVA
SADDAM HUSSEIN
SAMUEL KANYON DOE
SAPARMURAD ATAYEVICH NIYAZOV
SHEIK JABIR AL-AHMAD AL SABAH
SIR MUDA HASSANAL BOLKIAH
SYNGMAN RHEE
TEODORO OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO
TIBURCIO CARIAS ANDINO
TRAN THIEM KHIEM
TURGUT ÖZAL
WILLIAM J. S. TUBMAN
ZINE EL ABIDINE BEN ALI

[Rohirrim]

Except I've posted my own research on the matter here - with source links - thus how can I be "trolling"?

Rather I suspect this troll claim is how you have decided to not address the issue while trying to undercut the thread at the same time.

Sorry, that's as transparent as it is juvenile. :cowgirl:

No, drama llama. You've always been a troll. You're still a troll. Even with the sex change.

[nyuk nyuk]

The Shah repressed lots of people, not just Islamists. That little fact is overlooked by rationalists for authoritarianism, like yourself.

Like who? Christians? Jews? Those evil demons! The way the Shah hanged gay people and working women in public! That bastard!!! DIE!!!!!


You're right, what was I thinking? Here's a fine example of progress and human rights once the Great Satan was out of the way -

http://i48.tinypic.com/2d9tjr9.jpg

http://ncr-iran.org/images/stories/2007/repression/bild%20iran%20execution.jpg

http://www.freedomessenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Iranian-police-officers-a-009.jpg


Whereas you dismiss them as irrelevant, and are surprised when repressed people don't like being repressed.

All of these guys were A-OK by you...

If they keep Islamists and Marxists in check, you bet your pink ass they are. (And hey, I found your list at a place called TIN FOIL PALACE (http://tinfoilpalace.eamped.com/2011/01/29/dictators-supported-by-the-us/), fyi.)

Here's the problem with the left: Their laundry lists of evil dictators never include people who take over after Western-supported regimes are overthrown, go figure. Usually, rather such people are spun as "progressive" as their politics tend toward Marxism to one degree or another. Then you have the Islamists, as I explained, the allies of the international Left. To this great extent has Marxist class conflict theory poisoned the philosophy of even capitalist mainline American liberals. The America-as-evil drum beat originated with them.

I'll ask one last time: How is allowing Islamist and Marxist takeovers enlightened, progressive, and the overall right thing to do? How did this do a service to anyone?

[nyuk nyuk]

No, drama llama. You've always been a troll. You're still a troll. Even with the sex change.

If name calling like a prepubescent boy is all you have, by all means, fire away, buddy.

[W*GS]

If they keep Islamists and Marxists in check, you bet your pink ass they are.

Even if they're as bad or worse than Islamists and Marxists.

"We had to support the repression of democracy to errr, ahhh, keep the resources flowing!"

So much for the US being exceptional or principled.

I'll ask one last time: How is allowing Islamist and Marxist takeovers enlightened, progressive, and the overall right thing to do? How did this do a service to anyone?

Your eighth word above speaks volumes.

[lonestar]

OP is a troll. Please don't feed.

coming from the lead troll on the left that is pot calling kettle black BIG TIME..

[nyuk nyuk]

Even if they're as bad or worse than Islamists and Marxists.

"We had to support the repression of democracy to errr, ahhh, keep the resources flowing!"

You're saying that in the name of Democracy we should let Islamists and Marxists take over in a strategically important part of the globe. This is nonsense and the only justification you offer is your liberal sentimentalities.

In the real world there were also matters of fighting Soviet, Chinese, and Islamist expansionism, which your silly Tin Foil website **** list predictably did not take into consideration.

It's disenheartening to see Marxist spin of 20th century history overriding a level-headed consideration of the subject among mainstream Democrats. US policy was not guided by an evil imperialist scheme to control everyone and loot the poor indigenous proletarian masses. It was a combined effort to check Marxist and Islamist expansionism and keep key strategic areas in friendly hands, and nothing more. Such considerations are neither evil nor are they imperialistic. What you offer is that we allow these types to take control in the name of "democracy" and allow them to use the resources under their control as weapons against their enemies. Unacceptable.


So much for the US being exceptional or principled.

If you wish to view history through the ideological prism of the far left, you are likely to conclude the US is garbage. Sad to say you have been propagandized into self-loather status, which is the common lot of the average person exposed to that kind of propaganda for so many years.

You are trashing this country for not allowing the worst violators of basic human decency in history from taking over countries because a lesser dictatorial force was needed to keep the worse one from taking power, and you do it all with a straight face... All in the name of human rights and democracy, no less.

Seriously, dude, put down the Zinn. It is ****ing your head up sideways.

Your eighth word above speaks volumes.

Feel free to elaborate.

[W*GS]

You're saying that in the name of Democracy we should let Islamists and Marxists take over in a strategically important part of the globe.

What happened to self-determination? Tossed aside, just like our supposed commitment to universal human rights.

In the interest of profit, you'll disregard just about any moral principle. You and your ilk make it much more difficult to show the world how good and moral we are, with your willingness to throw out ethical behavior.

In the real world there were also matters of fighting Soviet, Chinese, and Islamist expansionism, which your silly Tin Foil website **** list predictably did not take into consideration.

The Soviet Union is dead. It imploded.

China is more interested in making money than conquering neighbors.

Islamists are a concern, but painting all Muslim-majority countries with the same broad brush is typical. Is Turkey Islamist?

US policy was not guided by an evil imperialist scheme to control everyone and loot the poor indigenous proletarian masses.

The difference between the above and what actually happened and is happening is epsilon.

What you offer is that we allow these types to take control in the name of "democracy" and allow them to use the resources under their control as weapons against their enemies. Unacceptable.

Every nation on the planet has the same right to self-determination and use of their resources as we do.

If you wish to view history through the ideological prism of the far left, you are likely to conclude the US is garbage.

It's pathetic that you're willing to abandon those principles that do make the US great and wonderful just for corporate interests.

You are trashing this country for not allowing the worst violators of basic human decency in history from taking over countries because a lesser dictatorial force was needed to keep the worse one from taking power, and you do it all with a straight face... All in the name of human rights and democracy, no less.

You'll support evil to combat perceived evil.

What, exactly, was wrong with Mohammad Mosaddegh?

Feel free to elaborate.

Since when has the US given itself the power to dictate to the people of other nations whom they're allowed to choose for their leaders? That's called imperialism, and you rationalize it.

Would you want to live in a nation the US had decreed was subject to its approval regarding its internal political structure?

[nyuk nyuk]

What happened to self-determination? Tossed aside, just like our supposed commitment to universal human rights.

Unsurprisingly, as I have stated, liberals have put aside basic reason for the sake of sentimentality. In the real world, one must deal with dangerous elements. This may mean keeping certain hostile groups in check until times are more stable. "Self-determination" has nothing to do with Islamist and Marxist elements wanting to take over a country and impose a far more severe form of dictatorship than US allies had in place. I've mentioned this before and you have yet to reply.


In the interest of profit, you'll disregard just about any moral principle. You and your ilk make it much more difficult to show the world how good and moral we are, with your willingness to throw out ethical behavior.

Thank you, comrade Lenin. I have already explained US policy at length and yet you are apparently unable to respond to it based on much else besides parroting Left philosophical Marxian class analysis under a pseudo-moral coating. Considering I grew up poor and an not (nor ever will be) rich, the motives you ascribe to me are entirely false but are not unexpected from one whose belief system has been influenced by Marxian class conflict theory.

Apparently with some people it is unreasonable to expect them to be able to understand that in reality, optimal situations sometimes must be postponed due to an unstable and dangerous environment. Worse, yet again, those same people conflate democracy with allowing Marxist or Islamist radicals from controlling governments as if they reflect the majority of the peoples' wishes without any evidence of this whatsoever. Both groups indeed take over via the sword and bloodbaths follow. Not something one would expect in a democratic environment. Yet the Left have nothing to say about this, for some inexplicable reason.



The Soviet Union is dead. It imploded.

I was explaining US policy during the Cold War and THIS is your response?


China is more interested in making money than conquering neighbors.

Actually, it is interested in both. If you haven't noticed China's expansionist goals, you may be living with your head in the ground. One word hint: Tibet.


Islamists are a concern, but painting all Muslim-majority countries with the same broad brush is typical. Is Turkey Islamist?

Islamists ARE a concern, yet you are attacking the US for supporting regimes that keep them out of power.

I never "painted" Muslim-majority countries in this manner and have answered this claim on another thread.


The difference between the above and what actually happened and is happening is epsilon.


I agree, and this is shown in your recognizing Islamists as a threat and then attacking US allies who keep them in check and out of power.


Every nation on the planet has the same right to self-determination and use of their resources as we do.

This isn't the argument. It's about dangerous governments getting into power, especially in areas where their resource abundance can be used to undermine others in one manner or another.


It's pathetic that you're willing to abandon those principles that do make the US great and wonderful just for corporate interests.

Yet again, you'd do yourself a favor by not quoting the philosophical likes of Zinn or Chomsky. I've explained in my previous post in detail why this thinking is wrong.


You'll support evil to combat perceived evil.

You support the greater evil over the lesser evil in the name of democracy. Deflecting from this fact isn't helping your cause in the least.

In the real world, sometimes there is a larger threat which may mean supporting a local lesser asshole may be needed for a time to combat the greater threat. You wish to let the larger threat take over so that you don't have to dirty your nails with the lesser asshole even if that lesser asshole keeps the greater threat in check.

Sometimes supporting lesser assholes for a time - especially in dangerous and unstable areas - is the hard facts on the ground and must be dealt with in that regard. This is how it is in the adult world, which isn't ruled by liberal fluffy feel-good sentimentality. You may wish to familiarize yourself with this world sooner than later. All we're going to get out of your philosophy is more Ayatollah Khomeinis.


What, exactly, was wrong with Mohammad Mosaddegh?

I already answered this.

Since when has the US given itself the power to dictate to the people of other nations whom they're allowed to choose for their leaders? That's called imperialism, and you rationalize it.

See above, Mr. Zinn. You're conflating "imperialism" with defense of Western Civilization without drawing any distinctions. This is, sad to say, something I have seen the Left do on a regular basis for many years.

Does the US or its allies knock off governments in stable parts of the world that don't have dangerous, extremist elements at the helm or within inches of it?


Would you want to live in a nation the US had decreed was subject to its approval regarding its internal political structure?

You act as if regular, peaceful people went into the polling booths and came out in a fair election with hostile, violent, repressive governments as a result. This is about as disconnected from reality as you can get.

[W*GS]

You're just rationalizing imperialism, 'nyuk'.

"We, the United States, will dictate to the peoples of the world how they should run their countries, elect their leaders, manage their resources, and any and all other economic and political matters, as we see fit."

That's your ideology in a nutshell. We ought to run the world, and if that means supporting evil, so be it.

So much for American exceptionalism and our commitment to liberty, freedom, individual rights, equality, democracy, self-determination, etc., etc. Those are cast aside whenever our corporate/economic/political interests are at stake.

Oh, and anyone who imposes American imperialism is a Commie. Cuz we say so.

[nyuk nyuk]

You're just rationalizing imperialism, 'nyuk'.

"We, the United States, will dictate to the peoples of the world how they should run their countries, elect their leaders, manage their resources, and any and all other economic and political matters, as we see fit."

That's your ideology in a nutshell. We ought to run the world, and if that means supporting evil, so be it.

So much for American exceptionalism and our commitment to liberty, freedom, individual rights, equality, democracy, self-determination, etc., etc. Those are cast aside whenever our corporate/economic/political interests are at stake.

Oh, and anyone who imposes American imperialism is a Commie. Cuz we say so.

Uh no, this is grossly simplistic parroting of Lefty propaganda and as I said fails wholly to take into consideration reality. On the one hand you accuse me of putting all Muslims into a lump while you are putting the totality of US foreign policy into a similar lump without looking into details or making contextual distinctions. This is shown in your failure to explain why countries not ruled by extremist nutjobs are not acted upon in any way, yet you claim we're also "imperialists" bent on "running the world." This is a contradiction.

Worse, it is the same garbage point by point I had seen in my years reading anti-capitalist Leftist publications. The kind of idiocy expressed in those books and magazines should not be making its way into legitimate American political discourse.


I found a site on the Mossadegh issue (http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/htdtisirancoup.html), even if it is biased left in its general outlook, has enough relevant information to make my point:

The real problem, however, was that he wanted to nationalize oil, not that dressed unusually, and the British and Americans were determined to remove him from power. Since the 1946 showdown with the USSR, the Americans had considered Iran to be a vital interest in the Mid-East, both to contain the Soviet Union and because of oil. In 1949, the NSC had put Iran within the containment policy, citing its resources, strategic location, proximity to the USSR, and ""exposure to political subversion,"" meaning the presence of radicals and communists in the majlis to assert its importance to the west.

And, by the way, you still haven't answered how and why in this commitment to idealism of yours justifies letting extremely hostile elements into power over ones that keep those hostile elements in check, even if those keeping the extremists in check are cows in their own right. If you're for human rights as you claim to be, then how in the name of human rights is it OK to let extremists into power even if that means far more internal bloodshed than would have happened otherwise? If this is the case with you, do you then support Hitler's election regardless of knowing what came later? Is this "democracy" and "freedom" to you? As I said, if it is, your value system is skewed. It is so narrow that the only qualification for decency you allow is to let all kinds of dangerous crap to control nations and the resources within them.

[Jetmeck]

Ahead of Election, Obama Stops Releasing ‘Stimulus’ Reports (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ahead-election-obama-stops-releasing-stimulus-reports_654968.html)

(See link above for whole article)

The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects. But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012. Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011...

Section 1513 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus”) explicitly states, “In consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers shall submit quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives that detail the impact of programs funded through covered funds on employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic indicators.” (The head of the Council of Economic Advisors, currently Alan Krueger, is appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and works within the Executive Office of the President. He is the president’s chief economic adviser.)

Indeed, the old reports that the administration released begin, “As part of the unprecedented accountability and transparency provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) was charged with providing to Congress quarterly reports on the effects of the Recovery Act on overall economic activity, and on employment in particular.”

Section 1513 of the ARRA further specifies, “The first report…shall be submitted not later than 45 days after the end of the first full quarter following the date of enactment of this Act….The last report required to be submitted…shall apply to the quarter in which the [Recovery Accountability and Transparency] Board terminates under section 1530.” Section 1530 declares, “The Board shall terminate on September 30, 2013.”

In other words, the Obama administration is required by law to submit quarterly reports on the “stimulus” through the third quarter of 2013. Yet the administration has apparently found it more convenient to stop after the second quarter of 2011 — more than two years early. Or perhaps it has just decided to put the release of these reports on hold until after the election. Either way, the Obama administration is now in violation of the president’s most prominent piece of legislation this side of Obamacare.



Before I say whether something is true or not because I have admitted to Nafta as a mistake ..... I want to know this didn't come from Fox or Limbaugh first..................?

Then you admit Romney's profitting from shipping jopbs overseas is wrong ?

Everyone here know it is wrong, in anybody's world......your as low as they come.

Likely this is some more made up BS from this idiot.

Keep in mind she says Obama pals around with red and pinkos and called him a communist........................seriously got to question anything coming form her.


You got this from a BLOG ? HAHAHHAHA

[nyuk nyuk]

Before I say whether something is true or not because I have admitted to Nafta as a mistake ..... I want to know this didn't come from Fox or Limbaugh first..................?

If you really wanted to know such a thing, you'd look it up. Rather, this is a rhetorical question meant to undermine the article without having to deal with it.


Likely this is some more made up BS from this idiot.

Keep in mind she says Obama pals around with red and pinkos and called him a communist........................seriously got to question anything coming form her.

Research it yourself and post your findings here. I already did.

I never called Obama a Communist, and I said in another thread, quote my post in which I did, or stop making false claims.

Weekly Standard is a political magazine, and sometimes their writers post on their own "blog" on the magazine's site. It's part of the magazine. Pay attention before sniffing the laughing gas, please.

[Rohirrim]

If name calling like a prepubescent boy is all you have, by all means, fire away, buddy.

Get rid of the vulgar avatar. It violates the guidelines of the forum.

[nyuk nyuk]

Get rid of the vulgar avatar. It violates the guidelines of the forum.

Report it, then. You wouldn't be crying about it were it Romney's head.

[W*GS]

Uh no, this is grossly simplistic parroting of Lefty propaganda and as I said fails wholly to take into consideration reality.

The Rightist belief in "pragmatism" has hugely damaged America's moral standing in the world. Sure, you can claim that you don't give a **** what the world thinks, but we saw what happened when that belief got put into place with the Bush administration. Remember 9/12/2001? Virtually the entire world was with us. Within two years, because of the Iraq war, virtually the whole world despised us.

It's impossible to claim to support liberty, freedom, democracy, individual rights, and so on, and then turn around and fully support total scumbags who make a mockery of all those things - who imprison their political opponents, torture, murder, censor, etc., etc.

We're supposed to be the good guys - and you "realists" spit on those principles when it suits you.

Worse, it is the same garbage point by point I had seen in my years reading anti-capitalist Leftist publications. The kind of idiocy expressed in those books and magazines should not be making its way into legitimate American political discourse.

Typical. Any criticism of US foreign policy can only be Marxist, right? You're full of crap.

You admit that we've supported (and still support) total bastards. Typical right-wing moral relativism.

The resources of a nation belong to that nation, not us. You think the world is ours to exploit as we see fit. Imperialism, again.

[TonyR]

As an ex-leftist...

LOL You have to love the "ex-leftist" shtick!

[W*GS]

LOL You have to love the "ex-leftist" shtick!

A great many conservatives claim to be "ex-leftist", or "ex-Democrats", or "voted for Obama". They think we're too stupid to figure it out.

[nyuk nyuk]

The Rightist belief in "pragmatism" has hugely damaged America's moral standing in the world. Sure, you can claim that you don't give a **** what the world thinks, but we saw what happened when that belief got put into place with the Bush administration. Remember 9/12/2001? Virtually the entire world was with us. Within two years, because of the Iraq war, virtually the whole world despised us.

Instead of addressing specific points you are making grandiose sweeps about unrelated subjects on one point of foreign policy as if that one point represents the whole. It does not.

It's impossible to claim to support liberty, freedom, democracy, individual rights, and so on, and then turn around and fully support total scumbags who make a mockery of all those things - who imprison their political opponents, torture, murder, censor, etc., etc.

Considering you support allowing Islamists and Marxists power in the name of decency and democracy, you are throwing rocks from a glass house. I am talking about the requirement that sometimes supporting little turds for a time keeps the big turds from surfacing. It does, you know it, and that's why you don't dispute it. Is your argument really a moral one or are you just angry that some of the big turds you may personally support have been or are thwarted?


We're supposed to be the good guys - and you "realists" spit on those principles when it suits you.

Good guys don't sit back while Islamists and Marxists take power and turn their countries into the gallows and threaten global stability. Tough to figure isn't it?


Typical. Any criticism of US foreign policy can only be Marxist, right? You're full of crap.

I didn't say any criticism, I said criticism that parrots Leftist party line. Thus far you're doing 100% parroting of stuff I've read from the Left and ONLY from the Left for years.


You admit that we've supported (and still support) total bastards. Typical right-wing moral relativism.

Yet again you fail to distinguish context and events relevant to the situation. It is no wonder, then, that your view is so skewed. At this point I'd call it childish-level naiveté.

The resources of a nation belong to that nation, not us. You think the world is ours to exploit as we see fit. Imperialism, again.

I never said such a thing, that is your Marxist conflict theory speaking. Again it ignores the point that the West has never agitated against non-hostile governments which didn't pose a threat to world stability. This is the third time you have failed to address this point.

[nyuk nyuk]

LOL You have to love the "ex-leftist" shtick!

It is true - liberalism can be and does get turned away from. I realize liberals like to think there's "no such thing" as if their political and social views are even stronger than the pull of Christ himself.

Welcome to the real world.

I voted Dukakis in 88. How about yourself?

[nyuk nyuk]

A great many conservatives claim to be "ex-leftist", or "ex-Democrats", or "voted for Obama". They think we're too stupid to figure it out.

Ex-liberals are those who figured it out. Current ones are indeed too stupid to figure it out.

Thanks for admitting there are a "great many" of us. :-*

[W*GS]

Considering you support allowing Islamists and Marxists power in the name of decency and democracy

We're not the world's Dad. Get that through your head.

Good guys don't sit back while Islamists and Marxists take power and turn their countries into the gallows and threaten global stability.

Good guys don't dispense with the Good when it suits their short-term narrow interests. You happily subvert any and all principles that distinguish our ideals from those of turds.

You support big turds because you fear peoples of other nations not cowering before the almighty United States of America, graced by your god to be its instrument on Earth.

[W*GS]

Ex-liberals are those who figured it out. Current ones are indeed too stupid to figure it out.

Chaining yourselves to the plutocracy and ignorant bigots isn't a means to survival, and I thank you.

Thanks for admitting there are a "great many" of us. :-*

There are a great many conservatives who are liars about their past beliefs.

[W*GS]

It is true - liberalism can be and does get turned away from.

Comfortable myths, like right-wing dogma, are easier than inconvenient truths. In short, conservatives are cowards, who are unintentionally ironic when they talk about the "real world".

I realize liberals like to think there's "no such thing" as if their political and social views are even stronger than the pull of Christ himself.

Like I said, comforting myths - like your christ.

I voted Dukakis in 88.

Bull****.

[nyuk nyuk]

We're not the world's Dad. Get that through your head.

What you need to get through your head is that life on earth is fragile - as are civilizations - and leaving the store unattended means we're not going to have a place to eat for long. Vital resources cannot be controlled by dangerous people. With your rationale, the USSR would have swept over Western Europe and across the Middle East into North Africa. Hitler would have done the same. Why? Because the Shah of Iran and those like him would have dirtied your nails.

I'm sorry, this is laughable.


Good guys don't dispense with the Good when it suits their short-term narrow interests. You happily subvert any and all principles that distinguish our ideals from those of turds.

I've explained at nauseating length why it is not "short-term interests." Stopping the most dangerous elements in the world from having control and power to manipulate and/or invade others is not sacrificing one's morality. I find it odd that for someone so allegedly steeped in the concerns of morality, you have no qualms with letting people who are far more repressive than the Shah ever was to hold and keep power, all because the Shah would dirty your nails. Yet again I am forced to question whether your stated reasons for hating the US participating in the installation of the Shah's government are for moral or political reasons. It doesn't add up.


You support big turds because you fear peoples of other nations not cowering before the almighty United States of America, graced by your god to be its instrument on Earth.

This is now instance #4 in which I have pointed out that the US doesn't go about randomly knocking off governments "just because" for the sake of greed. Name one government that's been disrupted anywhere that did NOT have Islamist or Marxist elements in it. Where are these peaceful paragons that have been ruthlessly manhandled and sodomized by Uncle Sam, the great hegemon?

[nyuk nyuk]

Chaining yourselves to the plutocracy and ignorant bigots isn't a means to survival, and I thank you.

LOL... You calling someone an ignorant bigot when your basic understanding of reality and foreign policy is severely crippled by overexposure to leftist rags. I guess bigotry is saying negative things about Muslims but not capitalist pigs. Whatever you say, Comrade.


There are a great many conservatives who are liars about their past beliefs.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever other than you dislike how many of them say they used to be liberal.

[nyuk nyuk]

Comfortable myths, like right-wing dogma, are easier than inconvenient truths. In short, conservatives are cowards, who are unintentionally ironic when they talk about the "real world".

Such sweeping generalizations from an enlightened, non bigot. Why I am duly impressed! I shall march pronto to the Denver Democratic HQ and volunteer my time!


Like I said, comforting myths - like your christ.

Wait, don't tell me... "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Amirite?


Bull****.

In hindsight, it was bull**** but I did it anyway.

[W*GS]

Wait, don't tell me... "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Amirite?

Your argument is not intelligently designed.

[TonyR]

Hey nyuk I see your Benghazi cover-up hopes are starting to fall apart:

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

[TonyR]

The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story

[nyuk nyuk]

Hey nyuk I see your Benghazi cover-up hopes are starting to fall apart:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

Here's what ****s this article: That was a "safe house." It was supposed to be secret. It was not a big embassy with a big flag and a neon sign saying, "AMERICANS ARE HERE." As such it was not something random which just happened to go their way. This mob knew their target, and further, at least one of the killed staff reported that the local rent-a-cops hired to "guard" them were acting suspiciously and taking pictures of the compound shortly prior to the attack (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/us/benghazi-victims/index.html):

A few hours earlier, Smith had posted, "assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures," he recounted.

So apparently CNN knows what the Pentagon doesn't.

Nice CYA attempt, but epic fail.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2dte8m.jpg

I thought that article was going to address the requests from Benghazi for more security.

Yeah, the hopes and the coverup are ****ed now.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!

[W*GS]

What you need to get through your head is that life on earth is fragile - as are civilizations - and leaving the store unattended means we're not going to have a place to eat for long.

Such hubris.

Vital resources cannot be controlled by dangerous people.

So you fully support transitioning the US off of fossil fuels and into solar, wind, and renewables as expeditiously and wisely as possible, so that we no longer have need of the resources located in other nations, and are thus vulnerable. Correct?

I'm sorry, this is laughable.

It's pathetic that you think the suffering of the people repressed by US-supported turds is "laughable".

Name one government that's been disrupted anywhere that did NOT have Islamist or Marxist elements in it.

You think every government that isn't a US toady has "Islamist" or "Marxist" elements.

[nyuk nyuk]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story

How does a spur of the moment mob find an unmarked, supposedly hidden location?

We'll await your intellectual rebuttal.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Notice how EpicDramaNyuk always uses "Muslim" like it's a dirty word or an epithet?

That's how we know it's really him, I guess.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/267648_543450329005853_592014207_n.jpg

[nyuk nyuk]

Such hubris.

I'm increasingly entertained by how your responses are shorter and more full of silly name calling without addressing points.


So you fully support transitioning the US off of fossil fuels and into solar, wind, and renewables as expeditiously and wisely as possible, so that we no longer have need of the resources located in other nations, and are thus vulnerable. Correct?

Whatever works I'm for, but I am not for wasting money during a recession for R&D projects that won't be viable for many years while trying to use these wasted funds pretending to people that it creates jobs for our unemployed.


It's pathetic that you think the suffering of the people repressed by US-supported turds is "laughable".

It's both pathetic and laughable that you think the US helping to keep Marxists and Islamists in check is repression.


You think every government that isn't a US toady has "Islamist" or "Marxist" elements.

Presuming to read my mind as a way of escaping responding to my question only tells me you're probably more Red than I initially suspected. It's reasonable to think that your anger on this subject comes from your independent study which has shown benign governments being knocked over right and left by the evil US military and its bloodsucking ruling class masters, otherwise you'd not hold such a strong, hostile hatred of your own government and country. If that's the case you should be able to respond to one single question on the subject. That you cannot speaks volumes: You've either internalized a belief system by the Useful Idiot method I have described in which people are exposed to Marxist propaganda without realizing it and become lockstep lemmings by accident (shown by that their beliefs, moral points of reference and even lingo reflect Marxist propaganda point by point) OR you're a flaming Marxist yourself and won't admit it.

I won't even bother addressing that you support a political party which has done many of the things you rail against here on this thread.

I will ask this: Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm increasingly entertained by how your responses are shorter and more full of silly name calling without addressing points.

You don't have points - just regurgitated Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

[nyuk nyuk]

Notice how EpicDramaNyuk always uses "Muslim" like it's a dirty word or an epithet?

Notice how liberals always do it with Christians and conservatives but don't have qualms about it?


That's how we know it's really him, I guess.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/267648_543450329005853_592014207_n.jpg

I'll allow you to respond to your own post.

Not surprised you failed to read the actual post and opted for your standard cartoon "rebuttal" instead.

[nyuk nyuk]

You don't have points - just regurgitated Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Great, if you have this wealth of information on me, feel free to post it here or on a separate thread and show me where I have parroted either of these two.

I am sure I will leave this forum ****faced and shamed. :cowgirl:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Notice how liberals always do it with Christians and conservatives but don't have qualms about it?


Only in your make-believe world.

But thanks for providing the chuckles with your feigned surprise and/or indignation that anyone would suggest conservatives have done anything to tarnish their brand. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Great, if you have this wealth of information on me, feel free to post it here or on a separate thread and show me where I have parroted either of these two.

I am sure I will leave this forum ****faced and shamed. :cowgirl:

The spam with which you regularly inundate this forum is all the evidence anyone needs that you march in lock step with Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter, and any number of other right-wing moonbats.

[nyuk nyuk]

Only in your make-believe world.

But thanks for providing the chuckles with your feigned surprise and/or indignation that anyone would suggest conservatives have done anything to tarnish their brand. Ha!

True, there have been many instances - on this forum for example - of liberals defending both Christians and conservatives from being generalized about and lumped into groups described with evil adjectives. They certainly never instigate it.

[nyuk nyuk]

The spam with which you regularly inundate this forum is all the evidence anyone needs that you march in lock step with Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter, and any number of other right-wing moonbats.

In other words, I say things you don't like therefore I must be parroting other people you don't like and by 99% percent likelihood you never listen to or read.

That's what I thought. ROFL!

[W*GS]

I'm increasingly entertained by how your responses are shorter and more full of silly name calling without addressing points.

Succinctness is a virtue - promotes clarity of thought.

It's both pathetic and laughable that you think the US helping to keep Marxists and Islamists in check is repression.

What's pathetic are your lame attempts at red-baiting. You realize it's 2012 and not 1952.

Presuming to read my mind as a way of escaping responding to my question only tells me you're probably more Red than I initially suspected.

Speaking of hubris and mind-reading...

It's reasonable to think that your anger on this subject comes from your independent study which has shown benign governments being knocked over right and left by the evil US military and its bloodsucking ruling class masters, otherwise you'd not hold such a strong, hostile hatred of your own government and country.

I'm gravely disappointed when my country sinks to the level of you and your ilk when it comes to its relationships with the other peoples of the world. You see, I believe that freedom, liberty, democracy, equality, individual rights are universal human values, the birthright of all people. You discard them on a whim, and have the gall to claim you're upholding morality and your own christian values when you do so. Endless thousands of corpses are the result of your relativism and "pragmatism".

I will ask this: Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Oh puhleeze.

Calling into question one's own government does not a Communist make. It's telling you think it does.

Next time you change your handle here, you should come clean and call yourself Tailgunner Joe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

True, there have been many instances - on this forum for example - of liberals defending both Christians and conservatives from being generalized about and lumped into groups described with evil adjectives. They certainly never instigate it.

Such a tangled web you weave in avoiding any sort of denial of my original claim about your view of Muslims.

[Rohirrim]

Report it, then. You wouldn't be crying about it were it Romney's head.

Seriously. It violates the forum guidelines. Self policing is the way it works around here. You're a relative newbie here, but you seem like a highly moral woman. You wouldn't want any young visitors seeing that, would you?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In other words, I say things you don't like therefore I must be parroting other people you don't like and by 99% percent likelihood you never listen to or read.

That's what I thought. ROFL!

Whether I like your posts or not is irrelevant.

The fact remains your takes mirror those of Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter, et al.

You regularly employ the same dishonest debate tactics as those folks as well.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Seriously. It violates the forum guidelines. Self policing is the way it works around here. You're a relative newbie here, but you seem like a highly moral woman. You wouldn't want any young visitors seeing that, would you?

He/she/it is giving us a preview of what life will be like when "the grownups are back in charge" and when the "family values" party restores "honesty and integrity" to D.C.

:D

[nyuk nyuk]

Succinctness is a virtue - promotes clarity of thought.

In your case, lack of response. You shouldn't so angrily cling to beliefs you can't explain when asked. You have wrongly called me several things which I am not, but have been called it by others of radical Leftist belief: Christian, corporatist, imperialist. You are doing the secular liberal version of Bible tumping; calling people evil demons because they haven't embraced Christ and don't conform to your personal views.


What's pathetic are your lame attempts at red-baiting. You realize it's 2012 and not 1952.

Except that Leftism and Marxism were neither born with nor died with the USSR. Those who parrot the ideological talking points of the radical left are going to be called out. The only publications I have seen express your beliefs are radical Left ones such as ZMag and International Socialist Review.


Speaking of hubris and mind-reading...

Then answer the question.


I'm gravely disappointed when my country sinks to the level of you and your ilk when it comes to its relationships with the other peoples of the world. You see, I believe that freedom, liberty, democracy, equality, individual rights are universal human values, the birthright of all people. You discard them on a whim, and have the gall to claim you're upholding morality and your own christian values when you do so. Endless thousands of corpses are the result of your relativism and "pragmatism".

First of all, you DO have hostility against this country. You have said so on this thread. This is a hostile remark. It is a sweeping and hostile generalization in reference to your own country due to its not conforming to your Leftist values:

So much for the US being exceptional or principled.

I suppose these would be valid points if you could address directly the number of points I have made instead of making generalized references citing generalized leftist political talking points. Yet again you invoke grand morals when all your policy suggestions would have given us would be rampant Nazi invasions, rampant Marxist invasions, a seceded South with slaves, and Islamist maniacs. Fighting against these clowns by supporting the likes of the Shah is neither abandonment of one's principles nor is it relativism. Equating the Shah with the far more oppressive government that followed him is. How is doing so an expression of the views of equality and other good mushy things you say to hold?


Oh puhleeze.

Calling into question one's own government does not a Communist make. It's telling you think it does.

Next time you change your handle here, you should come clean and call yourself Tailgunner Joe.

You parrot the party-line garbage of the international Leftist media and their Marxian ideological grandfathers. In doing so, it shouldn't come as a shock or insult to you that people may think you're one of them. At least to a degree you are.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You parrot the party-line garbage of the international Leftist media and their Marxian ideological grandfathers. In doing so, it shouldn't come as a shock or insult to you that people may think you're one of them.

And with language like the above, it shouldn't come as a shock to you that people recognize you as the Drama Llama! :wave:

[nyuk nyuk]

He/she/it is giving us a preview of what life will be like when "the grownups are back in charge" and when the "family values" party restores "honesty and integrity" to D.C.

:D

Right on!

http://i48.tinypic.com/e7fawy.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Right on!



Because your avatar just yells "grownup" and "family values!"

[nyuk nyuk]

And with language like the above, it shouldn't come as a shock to you that people recognize you as the Drama Llama! :wave:

Is he an ex-leftist like myself? This is where my language comes from. I see the overlap in talking points and moral values (I'm using the term 'moral values' loosely here).

I had no idea morality meant letting the Japanese rape Nanking or Hitler Poland or Stalin Hungary. I am morally illuminated! What were we thinking, interfering with the South's secession movement?

[nyuk nyuk]

Because your avatar just yells "grownup" and "family values!"

Thanks. :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is he an ex-leftist like myself?

Now that you mention it, yes, I believe you claimed the same thing when you were posting as the Drama Llama.

[W*GS]

In your case, lack of response. You shouldn't so angrily cling to beliefs you can't explain when asked. You have wrongly called me several things which I am not, but have been called it by others of radical Leftist belief: Christian, corporatist, imperialist.

I calls 'em as you sez 'em. You're an apologist for an immoral ideology.

First of all, you DO have hostility against this country.

False generalization. I have hostility against tyranny, oppression, repression, murder, torture, censorship - all things you excuse when it's convenient for your hubristic relativism.

It's never in the best interests of the United States to support regimes that engage in tyranny, oppression, repression, murder, torture, censorship. You believe otherwise - and when the victims of such acts finally overthrow the governments that engage in those things (too often with US help and aid), you're stunned that they don't like us.

There's literally no depth of depravity you would abjure if you believed it would "help" the US. That's perverted and disgusting.

You parrot the party-line garbage of the international Leftist media and their Marxian ideological grandfathers.

You wholeheartedly support tyrants, scumbags, bullies, and all other refuse of humanity. Despicable.

[nyuk nyuk]

Now that you mention it, yes, I believe you claimed the same thing when you were posting as the Drama Llama.

I think we're getting back to that silly liberal truism that there's no such thing as an ex-liberal.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think we're getting back to that silly liberal truism that there's no such thing as an ex-liberal.

Do you even know the meaning of "truism?"

[nyuk nyuk]

I calls 'em as you sez 'em. You're an apologist for an immoral ideology.

Immoral isn't stopping Soviet expansionism or Islamist coups.


False generalization. I have hostility against tyranny, oppression, repression, murder, torture, censorship - all things you excuse when it's convenient for your hubristic relativism.

Then why attack the US for blocking Soviet and Islamist expansionism? Your claimed morals fly in the face of the foreign policy you want.


It's never in the best interests of the United States to support regimes that engage in tyranny, oppression, repression, murder, torture, censorship. You believe otherwise - and when the victims of such acts finally overthrow the governments that engage in those things (too often with US help and aid), you're stunned that they don't like us.

I've already explained how it is in our interests and in the safety of Western Civilization to support regimes which keep dangerous elements in check. If you wish to throw your moral support for the poor "oppressed" Marxists and Islamists, help yourself. I have asked you for specific ways in which the Shah oppressed Christians, Jews, or non-combatant Muslims and you failed to do so, even while insisting that he "oppressed everyone."


There's literally no depth of depravity you would abjure if you believed it would "help" the US. That's perverted and disgusting.

This from a guy who votes for the only political party on the planet that has dropped atomic bombs on civilians. You gotta love the irony. Your moral pedestal is built upon wet clay.


You wholeheartedly support tyrants, scumbags, bullies, and all other refuse of humanity. Despicable.

You do by your hostility toward us keeping them out of power. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You wholeheartedly support tyrants, scumbags, bullies, and all other refuse of humanity. Despicable.

He's like that creepy little kid who stands behind the schoolyard bully because he believes it's the safest place to be.

It gives him a false sense of security.

He's the poster boy for "might makes right."

[nyuk nyuk]

Do you even know the meaning of "truism?"

Yes, its the synonym of other words such as cliche, which would also work in this situation.

[nyuk nyuk]

He's like that creepy little kid who stands behind the schoolyard bully because he believes it's the safest place to be.

It gives him a false sense of security.

He's the poster boy for "might makes right."

Since "W*GS" (whatever that nickname means) cannot make an argument for how it is a "moral" thing to do to allow Marxist and Islamist extremists from controlling nations and exerting their will around the globe, perhaps you can do it for him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, its the synonym of other words such as cliche, which would also work in this situation.

So, in other words, you're arguing that the truth of the statement "there's no such thing as an ex-liberal" is self-evident.

Somehow I think that's not exactly what you wanted to say. Ha!

[nyuk nyuk]

So, in other words, you're arguing that the truth of the statement "there's no such thing as an ex-liberal" is self-evident.

Somehow I think that's not exactly what you wanted to say. Ha!

No, it's taken as that, which is why words such as "cliche" are synonymous.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Since "W*GS" (whatever that nickname means) cannot make an argument for how it is a "moral" thing to do to allow Marxist and Islamist extremists from controlling nations and exerting their will around the globe, perhaps you can do it for him.

In your warped worldview, anyone who doesn't subscribe to your extreme anti-democracy/pro-corporatocracy platform is a "Marxist," and all Muslims are "Islamist extremists," so it's completely reasonable that any thinking person would take anything you have to say with several large grains of salt.

[nyuk nyuk]

Apparently the Mane has a liberal-left contingent of the Red-Green-Brown Alliance of which W*GS is a member. Unsurprisingly, they are all affiliated with the Democratic Party.

[nyuk nyuk]

In your warped worldview, anyone who doesn't subscribe to your extreme anti-democracy/pro-corporatocracy platform is a "Marxist," and all Muslims are "Islamist extremists," so it's completely reasonable that any thinking person would take anything you have to say with several large grains of salt.

Then answer my points. The floor is yours.

[W*GS]

I've already explained how it is in our interests and in the safety of Western Civilization to support regimes which keep dangerous elements in check.

And when the "dangerous elements" are the tyrants we support? Then what?

You excuse it and rationalize it. You'd support rapists because hey, they're less evil than murderers. And then are stunned when the rape victims aren't exactly enthused.

Your moral pedestal is built upon wet clay.

Oh, the irony. You'll excuse any level of immorality - as you've made abundantly clear.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, it's taken as that, which is why words such as "cliche" are synonymous.

So, either you're affirming the statement "there's no such thing as an ex-liberal" or you're implying that others see you as a liberal.

:laugh:

[W*GS]

Apparently the Mane has a liberal-left contingent of the Red-Green-Brown Alliance of which W*GS is a member. Unsurprisingly, they are all affiliated with the Democratic Party.

You can't imagine opposition to elements of American foreign policy without labeling those who do so as Commies.

Grow the **** up.

You wallow in the sewer and call yourself moral.

[nyuk nyuk]

And when the "dangerous elements" are the tyrants we support? Then what?

You excuse it and rationalize it. You'd support rapists because hey, they're less evil than murderers. And then are stunned when the rape victims aren't exactly enthused.

Explaining is not rationalizing. You have yet to tell us why it is more moral to support the Shah keeping down the Islamists than it is to let the Islamists control everything and repress everyone. All you do is claim the moral high road and call me names without explaining your position.


Oh, the irony. You'll excuse any level of immorality - as you've made abundantly clear.

See?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Then answer my points. The floor is yours.

You don't have a point.

Unless, by "point" you mean "paranoid, xenophobic, bigoted rant."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Apparently the Mane has a liberal-left contingent of the Red-Green-Brown Alliance of which W*GS is a member. Unsurprisingly, they are all affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Really?

And your proof of this is where?

[nyuk nyuk]

You don't have a point.

Unless, by "point" you mean "paranoid, xenophobic, bigoted rant."

Yet again you avoid a discussion by calling names while you retreat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Explaining is not rationalizing.

Not necessarily.

It most certainly is when you do it.

[nyuk nyuk]

Really?

And your proof of this is where?

I take it back - clearly W*GS is a conservative.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yet again you avoid a discussion by calling names while you retreat.

I'm not retreating one inch.

I stand by my observation that your "points" are nothing more than the delusions of a paranoid xenophobe and a bigot.

[W*GS]

Explaining is not rationalizing.

In your case, it is.

You have yet to tell us why it is more moral to support the Shah keeping down the Islamists than it is to let the Islamists control everything and repress everyone.

The Shah did the same things as you claim the Communists/Iran nationalists/Islamists would have done. What was the net positive, again?

All you do is claim the moral high road and call me names without explaining your position.

All you do is label everyone who doesn't want the US to sink to the lowest level of expediency a Commie. Explicitly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I take it back - clearly W*GS is a conservative.

But you said he was "affiliated with the Democratic Party."

That's a pretty specific claim.

Where is your proof?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I take it back - clearly W*GS is a conservative.

The irony here is that even your idol Saint Ron would end up getting run out of town on a rail by "conservatives" like you who constitute today's GOP.

[nyuk nyuk]

But you said he was "affiliated with the Democratic Party."

That's a pretty specific claim.

Where is your proof?

He attacks conservatives as the evil slime of the earth and espouses left morality. I've never seen him attack Obama. 2+2.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He attacks conservatives as the evil slime of the earth and espouses left morality. I've never seen him attack Obama. 2+2.

You didn't simply make a claim about his politics or political leanings - you claimed he had an affiliation with a specific political party.

Once again, where is your proof?

Or is it that you simply don't understand the difference?

[nyuk nyuk]

In your case, it is.

See my next comment.

The Shah did the same things as you claim the Communists/Iran nationalists/Islamists would have done. What was the net positive, again?

Yet again your childishly simplistic view of the situation has robbed you from an ability to distinguish and evaluate contexts in the real life world using the cards dealt us. The Shah did not hang homosexuals and religious converts in public; the Mullahs do. The Shah did not advocate worldwide Muslim revolution and expansionism. The Mullahs do. Yet by your morality it is correct and free that the Mullahs are in power and Washington should have their wrists slapped for daring to defy them.


All you do is label everyone who doesn't want the US to sink to the lowest level of expediency a Commie. Explicitly.

No, I simply call someone who parrots Left propaganda point by point a Useful Idiot or a Marxist. There isn't much wiggle room in such circumstances.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, I simply call someone who parrots Left propaganda point by point a Useful Idiot or a Marxist. There isn't much wiggle room in such circumstances.

Once again, removing all doubt that you are the Drama Llama. :welcome:

[nyuk nyuk]

You didn't simply make a claim about his politics or political leanings - you claimed he had an affiliation with a specific political party.

Once again, where is your proof?

Or is it that you simply don't understand the difference?

Excuse me, he speaks as one in many ways. Definite left of center, and liberals emcompass not only the DP but also beyond it. Still, my comment about the Red-Green-Brown alliance includes him and other liberals here, Democrat or otherwise.

[nyuk nyuk]

Once again, removing all doubt that you are the Drama Llama. :welcome:

You just say that to evade me :)

[W*GS]

Yet again your childishly simplistic view of the situation has robbed you from an ability to distinguish and evaluate contexts in the real life world using the cards dealt us. The Shah did not hang homosexuals and religious converts in public; the Mullahs do. The Shah did not advocate worldwide Muslim revolution and expansionism. The Mullahs do. Yet by your morality it is correct and free that the Mullahs are in power and Washington should have their wrists slapped for daring to defy them.

The Shah, despite our backing, lost the support of the Iranian people. You demand that we should have continued supporting him, despite his political prisoners, despite his SAVAK, despite his anti-democratic actions, despite all the immoral things he did - which is what cost him legitimacy in the first place.

It's "pragmatism" of your dogma that too often leads to revolutions and anti-American feelings by peoples around the world. You claim to love America, yet you agitate in favor of a foreign policy that makes people hate America and gains us enemies.

You're doubly reprehensible.

[Rohirrim]

You just say that to evade me :)

Your avatar violates the decency protocols of this forum as outlined by TJ at the top of the forum: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1182093&postcount=1

I have reported it.

[nyuk nyuk]

I'm not retreating one inch.

I stand by my observation that your "points" are nothing more than the delusions of a paranoid xenophobe and a bigot.

You defend the indefensible, indeed this is shown by your failure in defending as benign that which others have shown is not. Predictably, in place of an argument you start your label gunning and cartoon nonsense. At least we know what level of intellect you are capable of - not a very high one.

You've been told about 50 times already that labels are not arguments or defenses for a position.

[nyuk nyuk]

Your avatar violates the decency protocols of this forum as outlined by TJ at the top of the forum: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1182093&postcount=1

I have reported it.

Good, little boy. Just cross your fingers and hope his subjective definition of "crossing the line" equals yours. Considering a number of users have soft core pornography on their avatars with impunity, good luck to you.

Have a Kleenex.

[Rohirrim]

Good, little boy. Just cross your fingers and hope his subjective definition of "crossing the line" equals yours. Considering a number of users have soft core pornography on their avatars with impunity, good luck to you.

Have a Kleenex.

This is why you are a troll. You have no respect for the forum, or those on it, or for the OM itself. You've always come here to do little more than throw inciting garbage around calculated to inflame and enrage, rather than openly discuss. I suspect your goal has always been to shut this forum down. Hopefully, TJ and the moderators see you for what you are and toss you permanently.

[nyuk nyuk]

The Shah, despite our backing, lost the support of the Iranian people. You demand that we should have continued supporting him, despite his political prisoners, despite his SAVAK, despite his anti-democratic actions, despite all the immoral things he did - which is what cost him legitimacy in the first place.

It's "pragmatism" of your dogma that too often leads to revolutions and anti-American feelings by peoples around the world. You claim to love America, yet you agitate in favor of a foreign policy that makes people hate America and gains us enemies.

You're doubly reprehensible.

Yet again you duck that he was better than the alternative. I've already stated I have no interest in violating national sovereignty. I have no more interest in babysitting overgrown children than anyone else. However, as I have stated in two posts already, internal issues in Iran posed a threat internationally, including but not limited to Islamist agitation.

Morally reprehensible is arguing against a regime on moral grounds that was the lesser of two evils, knowing that even in hindsight those that took their place are far bigger butchers.

As I said, SAVAK kept Islamists in check. Did it hound Jews and Christians or homosexuals or other everyday Iranians who were non-Marxist or non-Islamist? Seems to me here you are defending Islamist elements who were rightfully repressed by the Shah in the name of freedom, which as I said makes no sense. Rather than explaining this position, you keep repeating these vague, generalized lefty canards followed by these silly misguided moral outbursts that smell of political posturing ripped from the kitty liner-worthy pages of ZMag.

You realize, of course, that the Mullahs kept SAVAK and changed its name to SAVAMA and simply changed some of the personnel that ran it? Apparently when the Mullahs took it over, it became a symbol of the expression of the freedoms of the Iranian people. ROFL!

You're saying the moral thing to have done would be to let the Islamists take over, establish a far more repressive government than the Shah ever had (lynching gays in public - genius!), AND one that openly desires to export Islamic Revolution, threaten our allies via proxy forces (Hizbollah), and destabilize the world economy... In the name of freedom, no less.

Thanks for reminding me why I'm no longer a lib. Concepts of freedom to lefties are inverted; they mean letting tyrants dick us and our allies around.

[nyuk nyuk]

This is why you are a troll. You have no respect for the forum, or those on it, or for the OM itself. You've always come here to do little more than throw inciting garbage around calculated to inflame and enrage, rather than openly discuss. I suspect your goal has always been to shut this forum down. Hopefully, TJ and the moderators see you for what you are and toss you permanently.

All this from an avatar that ruffles your feathers. I have no respect for whiners like YOU and you've apparently launched a crusade against me for not much more than I say things you don't like and have an avatar that has pissed you off to no end.

I really am glad it pisses you off. Liberals deserve to be pissed off.

EDIT: Oh, and I have an avatar suggestion for you to use.

http://i45.tinypic.com/ealfyb.jpg

You're really going off the deep end with your tin foil conspiracy theorizing. I'd suggest hooking up with Art Bell and/or Alex Jones. I'm sure they'd love to have you.

Trying to get the forum shut down!!! LOL

[Rohirrim]

All this from an avatar that ruffles your feathers. I have no respect for whiners like YOU and you've apparently launched a crusade against me for not much more than I say things you don't like and have an avatar that has pissed you off to no end.

I really am glad it pisses you off. Liberals deserve to be pissed off.

Then perhaps you should read this: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1182093&postcount=1

Most people who come to a new environment show a little respect for it. You don't seem to feel that need. It's as if you've been here for many years and know all the ins and outs and feel you can pretty much just throw your garbage around with impunity. Your avatar is vulgar. Hard to believe that any woman would post such a thing.

[nyuk nyuk]

Then perhaps you should read this: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1182093&postcount=1

I already did and already responded. Why do you think I said "subjective"? There is nothing precise about that rule, and it's a matter of the subjective opinion of the forum moderators versus your own subjective opinion.

Most people who come to a new environment show a little respect for it. You don't seem to feel that need. It's as if you've been here for many years and know all the ins and outs and feel you can pretty much just throw your garbage around with impunity. Your avatar is vulgar. Hard to believe that any woman would post such a thing.

I have plenty of respect for a new environment. I have read the rules and realize there is a wide berth for open discussion here, and consequently I post accordingly, as does everyone else. It wasn't long after I started posting here that I began to get attacked by the liberals in an increasingly hostile manner if nothing else for the opinions I have expressed.

Apparently in your mind it is OK for liberals such as LA or Jetmeck or Requiem to operate with impunity and abuse others at will because they're liberals like you? If indeed these protestations of yours were valid ones, you'd be laying charges on them all as well, for they make FAR more personal attacks than I ever have, and do so as the bulk of their post as opposed to a swipe teasing someone while in the process of making an argument about a position. Yet you are silent.

It seems to me that in large part due to the inability of certain liberal posters here to address my points in an adult fashion, it has become popular to try to dismiss me in toto by whipping up conspiracy theories about my alleged identity. I have invited people numerous times to search my nickname on the team-owned Broncos forums to see my posts there. Only Requiem seems to have taken me up on that invitation. I'm tickled by the tendency liberals have to loudly support due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty until the accused is a conservative. Suddenly it's guilty before proven innocent. You should consider yourselves lucky I even offered as much as your looking at my posts at the team forum to see I am a real, separate person, because I certainly don't owe you that.

Maybe you need some anger management? I certainly haven't remotely said anything anywhere near to the level of "shutting down" this forum, yet you are making increasingly bizarre accusations toward me. If kicking the butts of liberals in a debate section is shutting down the forum, I suppose you have a point, though. :cowgirl:

[Rohirrim]

I already did and already responded. Why do you think I said "subjective"? There is nothing precise about that rule, and it's a matter of the subjective opinion of the forum moderators versus your own subjective opinion.



I have plenty of respect for a new environment. I have read the rules and realize there is a wide berth for open discussion here, and consequently I post accordingly, as does everyone else. It wasn't long after I started posting here that I began to get attacked by the liberals in an increasingly hostile manner if nothing else for the opinions I have expressed.

Apparently in your mind it is OK for liberals such as LA or Jetmeck or Requiem to operate with impunity and abuse others at will because they're liberals like you? If indeed these protestations of yours were valid ones, you'd be laying charges on them all as well, for they make FAR more personal attacks than I ever have, and do so as the bulk of their post as opposed to a swipe teasing someone while in the process of making an argument about a position. Yet you are silent.

It seems to me that in large part due to the inability of certain liberal posters here to address my points in an adult fashion, it has become popular to try to dismiss me in toto by whipping up conspiracy theories about my alleged identity. I have invited people numerous times to search my nickname on the team-owned Broncos forums to see my posts there. Only Requiem seems to have taken me up on that invitation. I'm tickled by the tendency liberals have to loudly support due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty until the accused is a conservative. Suddenly it's guilty before proven innocent. You should consider yourselves lucky I even offered as much as your looking at my posts at the team forum to see I am a real, separate person, because I certainly don't owe you that.

Maybe you need some anger management? I certainly haven't remotely said anything anywhere near to the level of "shutting down" this forum, yet you are making increasingly bizarre accusations toward me. If kicking the butts of liberals in a debate section is shutting down the forum, I suppose you have a point, though. :cowgirl:

Your avatar is vulgar and violates norms of decency on this forum. Simply change it and the issue is resolved. You want to put Obama as a clown? Fine by me. As the Joker? Fine. Your avatar is vulgar, regardless of who's head is photoshopped in there. Seems whenever women want to trash a man they go right for the genitals. Don't ask me why. As far as your avatar goes, like Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it."

BTW, you can neg rep me all day for all I care. I prefer to argue my points right here in the forum. Out in the open.

[W*GS]

I've already stated I have no interest in violating national sovereignty.

Bull****. You believe that if a country has a political system that you find unacceptable, the US has the right to do everything in its power to change that system to be more to your liking. Likewise, the US has the right to support a political system that thwarts the freedoms and rights of the people, if that political system is to your liking.

In other words, the US' job is to be the world bully and to dictate, and enforce, whatever political and economic arrangements are amenable to US interests, the concepts of self-determination, democracy, liberty, equality, freedom, etc. being wholly irrelevant to those interests.

Concepts of freedom to lefties are inverted; they mean letting tyrants dick us and our allies around.

You have no concept of freedom excepting as the US allows it, or, perverts it, so long as American interests are served.

And you don't even realize that such relativism leads to the creation of our enemies. You promote an endless cycle of repression, war, revolution, at tremendous human and economic cost, to us and the peoples of the world.

[nyuk nyuk]

Bull****. You believe that if a country has a political system that you find unacceptable, the US has the right to do everything in its power to change that system to be more to your liking. Likewise, the US has the right to support a political system that thwarts the freedoms and rights of the people, if that political system is to your liking.

This is a straw man and a grossly vast over-generalization. I said ONLY if it represents an international threat worthy of attention, and that indeed has been Washington's policy as well. Parroting the pages of Michael Parenti seems to be about all you're capable of, unfortunately.


In other words, the US' job is to be the world bully and to dictate, and enforce, whatever political and economic arrangements are amenable to US interests, the concepts of self-determination, democracy, liberty, equality, freedom, etc. being wholly irrelevant to those interests.

I never said such a thing, and I have already asked what, four times (?) for an example of where the US participated in removing/keeping out of power governmental structures that were not international threats. You can't come up with one, yet I'm supposed to swallow this regurgitated blather about how the US controls everything like a puppet master.

Ha!


You have no concept of freedom excepting as the US allows it, or, perverts it, so long as American interests are served.

Since when was freedom allowing dangerous elements to threaten the world? You are defending dangerous totalitarian political and religious movements and nothing more. You are attacking international resistance to the rise of such dangerous movements as being an "attack on freedom." You are out of your mind.


And you don't even realize that such relativism leads to the creation of our enemies. You promote an endless cycle of repression, war, revolution, at tremendous human and economic cost, to us and the peoples of the world.

As I said, as a former leftist, I am well familiar with the talking points, including this one. Both Marxism and Islamism are expansionist, totalitarian ideologies inherently hostile to those ideologically unaligned with them yet in spite of that you claim we "create" enemies by resisting the rise of such hostile, expansionist, totalitarian elements from gaining power?

Perhaps you can tell us who "made" all those invading Muslim armies much of the past 1,400 years invade nation after nation from West Africa to Europe to East Asia? What evil demon made them do what they do, and how do you categorize resistance to the rise of such hostile powers as oppression and bullying?

As I said, your moral value system is warped and it's been warped by the radical left.

[nyuk nyuk]

Your avatar is vulgar and violates norms of decency on this forum. Simply change it and the issue is resolved. You want to put Obama as a clown? Fine by me. As the Joker? Fine. Your avatar is vulgar, regardless of who's head is photoshopped in there. Seems whenever women want to trash a man they go right for the genitals. Don't ask me why. As far as your avatar goes, like Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it."

BTW, you can neg rep me all day for all I care. I prefer to argue my points right here in the forum. Out in the open.

I'm not going to repeat that I don't care about your subjective sensibilities. I will remove the avatar if STAFF ask me to do so, not a sniveling lib.

Not ONCE did I see during the entire Bush tenure a liberal say it was inappropriate to cast Bush as a chimp or Curious George. But I should recoil in horror at Obama being cast as a dickhead?

I will not be running my avatars through you for approval. Thankfully this forum doesn't belong to you or hysterical people like you.

[nyuk nyuk]

I only hope my new avatar doesn't upset Rohirrim's sensibilities.

Go figure. The philosophy that brought us sex ed for 5 year olds can't handle a cartoon about Obama.

[W*GS]

'nyuk', you still don't get it. It's precisely because you demand that the US run roughshod over the universal values of liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, individual rights in other nations that we get enemies.

Your dogma is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[nyuk nyuk]

'nyuk', you still don't get it. It's precisely because you demand that the US run roughshod over the universal values of liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, individual rights in other nations that we get enemies.

Your dogma is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

First of all, those values are not universal. If they were, this earth wouldn't have the history that it does. Liberty, freedom, self-determination, and democracy are not remotely related to traditional Islamic governance. It's amazing this has to be explained. I suppose it happens when one's major exposure to Islam comes from liberal media apologists and not Muslim texts. Under Islamic law, non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries are treated like like second class citizens with limited rights. I guess this is "freedom" in your book, so you support such governments.

Yet again, in the name of universal liberal values you support allowing the rise of hostile, totalitarian, expansionist governments that have a very long history of threatening neighbors and regions, if not continents, and this basic fact wholly escapes you. You are supporting governments that come into power not by popular vote but by taking over. You are also continuously claiming the US knocks off any government it doesn't like regardless of international threat or not, yet you cannot give us ONE example of this.

Your arguments are in conformity with countless Leftist books and magazines I have read, and literally do not reach beyond their scope. Then you get mad when you're suspected of being a Marxist. Oy vey.

[Rohirrim]

I only hope my new avatar doesn't upset Rohirrim's sensibilities.

Go figure. The philosophy that brought us sex ed for 5 year olds can't handle a cartoon about Obama.

Nope. It's silly, but not vulgar. :-*

[W*GS]

First of all, those values are not universal. If they were, this earth wouldn't have the history that it does.

It's precisely because of people like you who discard those values for other, less moral values, that we get the history we've had. Your dogma prevents you from even recognizing that.

Under Islamic law, non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries are treated like like second class citizens with limited rights. I guess this is "freedom" in your book, so you support such governments.

Under your dogma, everyone on the planet has to accede to American interests, or face the violent consequences.

You'd like to believe that Islam and democracy cannot co-exist, but that's not true. Turkey, Indonesia, and others are proof that you're wrong.

You just want to raise the specter of Islamic law to justify your crusade. We're not falling for that nonsense.

Your arguments are little more than "might makes right".

[nyuk nyuk]

Nope. It's silly, but not vulgar. :-*

Sorry I'll try to come up with something better.

[nyuk nyuk]

It's precisely because of people like you who discard those values for other, less moral values, that we get the history we've had. Your dogma prevents you from even recognizing that.

Unfortunately you're such a fluffy-headed bleeding heart you have no concept of dealing with life and threats in the real world.

With your ahistorical flourish of self-righteous posturing (which is nothing short of a secular liberal version of Bible thumping), you have failed to reconcile your own belief system with points I have made, namely that you're saying it is an act of superior morality to let a greater evil control a country and threaten its neighbors than it is to support a lesser evil for a time to keep the greater one in check until things are stabilized. Irrational, illogical... Stupid.

If you wish to make a sincere moral argument, then at least reconcile the obvious contradictions in your argument. Rather than doing that, you'd rather call names and like the average Bible thumper and claim you've cornered the market on true morality while sitting on your moral high chair lobbing lightning bolts of righteous fury down on the heretics. In your strange little world, righteousness is letting the likes of Stalin and Hitler come to power and do at will what they choose, because trying to stop them means we are "bullies." ROFL!

Let's see... Being a "bully" against a totalitarian empire in the making OR letting millions get slaughtered. Yep, let the bloodletting go on, we can't be "bullies." :clown:

Under your dogma, everyone on the planet has to accede to American interests, or face the violent consequences.

I have said several times that the US does not call for the removal of governments that do not present international threats. Since you falsely assert that they bump off anyone who doesn't kiss their ass, I have asked for ONE example of this in which the US participated in the removal of a government that was neither Marxist or Islamist. (This is now request #7 for this ONE example you have yet to produce.) You cannot come up with ONE measly example of it, yet you keep claiming that we are steamrolling everyone who breathes in the wrong direction.

You'd like to believe that Islam and democracy cannot co-exist, but that's not true. Turkey, Indonesia, and others are proof that you're wrong.

True Islam is not democratic or free. Study Islamic law, not NPR. If you're going to say you want freedom and equality, don't talk about how lovely Islamic Law is. Perhaps next you'll tell us how lovely and free life was under the Inquisition.

Neither of those two countries you mention here are Islamic states, let alone Islamist ones. Notice how the US isn't working to remove the non-expansionist governments of Turkey and Indonesia and has indeed helped set up Islamic governments in places like Iraq and Libya? Notice how non-expansionist Islamic governments like Saudi Arabia are not overthrown? Why? No international threat, like I said.

Indonesia is a republic with an elected president and assembly. It is not a country that is a theocratic Islamic state. Same with Turkey. In the case of Turkey, it was previously the EXPANSIONIST ISLAMIST Ottoman Empire until Western powers defeated it and a secular Westernized government was founded by Ataturk which abolished the previous Islamist Caliphate. (Thus, your Turkey example actually proves my point!)

You just want to raise the specter of Islamic law to justify your crusade. We're not falling for that nonsense.

This from a guy who apparently thinks Indonesia and Turkey are Islamic states.

I can only hope you know the difference between a Muslim-majority country and an Islamic state, because you don't seem to be able to distinguish the two.

I have no "crusade" and going after countries for their religion has nothing to do with US foreign policy nor the GOP platform, and never has.


Your arguments are little more than "might makes right".

Taking out dangerous international threats is right. Question is why do you apologize for them in the name of a moral values system you don't even apply evenly?

[W*GS]

Unfortunately you're such a fluffy-headed bleeding heart you have no concept of dealing with life and threats in the real world.

Aaaand back to the pragmatism act. Thanks for admitting you're a relativist - no principle cannot be abandoned in the name of American interests. You're so flexible that you'll support evil. Remember Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in friendship?

You're conceding that our guiding principles are lies, you know.

I have asked for ONE example of this in which the US participated in the removal of a government that was neither Marxist or Islamist.

Syria 1949
Iran 1953
South Vietnam 1963

You're a fan of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. It didn't work.

True Islam is not democratic or free.

True Scotsman fallacy.

Taking out dangerous international threats is right.

You label all opposition to the US as "dangerous international threats". How convenient.

[nyuk nyuk]

Aaaand back to the pragmatism act. Thanks for admitting you're a relativist - no principle cannot be abandoned in the name of American interests. You're so flexible that you'll support evil. Remember Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in friendship?

You're conceding that our guiding principles are lies, you know.

I said nothing about abandonment of principles. You're talking about clinging to a narrow viewpoint in such an odd and extremist way that you let greater evils take over and spread like a contagion in the name of morality.



Syria 1949
Iran 1953
South Vietnam 1963

After a whopping 7 requests I get garbage. Well, at least it's better than nothing.

I've already explained Iran.

South Vietnam, you claim the US bumped off Diem without evidence that was the case. It is, however, common in Left historical circles to take for granted this was the case. This is from the Kennedy library (http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Vietnam-Diem-and-the-Buddhist-Crisis.aspx):

The Fall of Diem


President Kennedy tried to impress upon President Diem the need for major government reforms in Saigon, but Diem ignored the warnings. In August, Diem declared martial law and his forces raided the pagodas of the Buddhist group behind the protests. Soon after, South Vietnamese military officers contacted U.S. government representatives and inquired about what a U.S. response would be to a military coup in Saigon. The officers assassinated Diem and overthrew his government in November 1963.

In August and October 1963, President Kennedy and his advisors had met several times to discuss the potential consequences of a coup in Vietnam and how the United States should react. Excerpts of the tapes and documents related to this crisis can be found in the header of this webpage. The image in the header shows Henry Cabot Lodge, the newly appointed Ambassador to South Vietnam, in a meeting with President Kennedy on August 15, 1963.

The tapes reveal President Kennedy's reservations about U.S. support for a military coup in South Vietnam. They document meetings the president held with State Department, White House, military, and intelligence advisors during the week after Cable 243 (pdf) was sent. Cable 243, which set a course for the eventual coup in Vietnam on November 1, 1963, has been described by one historian as the "single most controversial cable of the Vietnam War."

So here you're accusing the US of bumping off a guy who was persecuting Buddhists and raiding peoples' houses... In the name of freedom. Oh and uh, he also happened to be a key ally in the fight against the Viet Cong, if you hadn't noticed.

(Why am I the only one defending Kennedy here? Where are the Democrats??!)

Now Syria.

Again, you fail to consider the Cold War, Communism, and international threats and conflate such nations with those who are benign. What just happened in 1948 that Syria and the leader that got knocked out of power participated in? OH that's right -- THE INVASION OF ISRAEL, a war that did not end until March of 1949 in part DUE TO THE BLOODLESS COUP of one of the men that led that invasion that you currently are angry was deposed (WTF?), yet you're going to suck your thumb that one of the national aggressors in this war experienced A COUP? BUWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! False morality! LEFTIST ALERT! False moral outrage wrapping political agenda! I know it when I see it. This has been a leftist tactic forever. How is leaving a weirdo who was in the middle of invading a country and trying to butcher its population an act of freedom and morality?

Oh those benign little creatures in Syria have the right to "freedom" which includes the right to threaten their neighbors and hop in the sack with the USSR. I asked for non-hostile, benign governments and you give me some belligerent genocidal maniacs? I didn't think you could do it, and you couldn't.


True Scotsman fallacy.

Show me one Islamic state that is compatible with secular Western ideals. You have so far given me two Muslim-majority countries with secular Western-style governments. Thus, you shot your own argument in the foot.

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state with an Islamic government. That is why it is so alien to Western ideals. Notice how repressive of non-Muslims it is? Christians cannot build new churches nor celebrate their faith in public. They can be arrested for proselytism. That is Islamic law. That's what it looks like. Pull your head out of the sand.

Notice that since Saudi isn't an expansionist Islamist government, the US hasn't removed it? Think that means something? It just might. :wave:


You label all opposition to the US as "dangerous international threats". How convenient.

I never said that. I said Islamists and Marxists are. This continual misrepresentation of my words has gone to such an extreme that you continue them even after I have corrected you multiple times. You have now crossed into such extreme territory with this that it is safe for me to call you a liar.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I only hope my new avatar doesn't upset Rohirrim's sensibilities.

Go figure. The philosophy that brought us sex ed for 5 year olds can't handle a cartoon about Obama.

::)

Leave it to an unthinking pinhead like you to equate sex education with dirty pictures.

[nyuk nyuk]

'nyuk', you still don't get it. It's precisely because you demand that the US run roughshod over the universal values of liberty, freedom, self-determination, democracy, individual rights in other nations that we get enemies.

And the right for rednecks to deny blacks jobs. Yee haw!