REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

RE: Reagan the Hero- Iran/Contra; defend it if you can, NeoCon appologist morons!

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Monday, November 18, 2024 12:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10865
PAGE 2 of 3

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:19 AM

KHYRON


Causal, I completely agree with what you're saying regarding there being ideologues on both sides, but in response to the style of American politics, how much lower do you think voter turn-out would be if one really had politics that revolved around policies and not personalities? It's a shame, but there's a reason why it has become this way.



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:22 AM

CAUSAL


Probably a lot lower, you're right. Of course, voter apathy is a whole other issue besides the two-party system. Somehow, strangely, I'd rather have lower voter turn-out if it meant that those who did show up were educated on the relevant issues and candidates.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 8:18 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Big words coming from the side of discrimination and bigotry.



Quote:

Originally posted by XXXX:
In my opinion [Christians] should be glad to be tolerated as they are, cause I for one, would like to see the evil bastards tied to a stake and screaming while the flames licked ever closer, and fault me for it if you will, I would damned well ENJOY it.



The right doesn't have the market on hatred and bigotry, you know.



Of course not, but I'm pretty sure that if you comared the right and left the right would have a much worse track record on the subject.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 9:22 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Of course not, but I'm pretty sure that if you comared the right and left the right would have a much worse track record on the subject.



This is exactly the sort of statement I'm talking about though: how is this not itself a bigoted and discriminatory statement? After all, how would you ever figure out who had what kind of record, and how would it be possible determine whose record was worse? This kind of statement reflects dogmatism, not realism, and is no different than saying, "Vote Democrat: It's Easier Than Thinking." How is your statement that the right has a worse record on bigotry different than if AUraptor said that the left has a worse record on moral terpitude? Wouldn't that bother you just a little? I'm sure that it would have to, both because it's just untrue and because it's ridiculous to even claim that you could make that kind of calculation. Both parties have done bad. Neither is on the whole better or worse than the other. To assert that the Republicans are the party of discrimination and bigotry is no more true than to say that the Democrats are the party of immorality. Both statements represent nothing more than the dogmatism of the party in their attempt to paint the other side as stupid or evil or both, in order to make it so that the American voter will continue giving them power without actually thinking things through carefully enough to realize that we no longer have a representative democracy, we have an oligarchy of the wealthy.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 9:40 AM

MEDFORDTIM


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"Why, oh, why do we have to have a two-party system?" Well, ok. I haven't taken my Ritalin yet, so of course the first thing that popped into my head - and would have been out of my mouth if we were talking - was - " 'cause it's better than one party?" Followed immediately by "you can never have too many parties !" Which of course progresses the discussion not at all.

off the wall and need to climb back on ...



Rue's a member of the All Night Party

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 9:48 AM

MEDFORDTIM


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Probably a lot lower, you're right. Of course, voter apathy is a whole other issue besides the two-party system. Somehow, strangely, I'd rather have lower voter turn-out if it meant that those who did show up were educated on the relevant issues and candidates.



I tend to agree, but my preference (for America) would be the Australian system = Vote - It's The Law!

For some reason, politicians don't like that idea...



Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 9:56 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
This is exactly the sort of statement I'm talking about though. How would you ever figure out who had what kind of record, and how would it be possible determine whose record was worse?



Historically pushes for tolerance and greater acceptance have usually come from the left (whichever party is pushing a socially liberal agenda at the time), whether or not it is easily quantifiable...I don't know, but every time in history that I have heard of tolerance comes from the moderate left more than any other source. The extreme left can be just as bad as the right with intolerance, but even the moderate right has, in my experience, been behind the left in issues of bigotry and discrimination.

Quote:

How is your statement that the right has a worse record on bigotry different than if AUraptor said that the left has a worse record on moral terpitude?


I'm actually not disagreeing with AUraptor's statement on the subject, we both agree the the left has less concern with moralistic issues, the real difference is that he sees it as bad and I don't.

Quote:

Both parties have done bad. Neither is on the whole better or worse than the other.


More or less agree, but I never mentioned parties, I was talking about ideologies.

Quote:

Both statements represent nothing more than the dogmatism of the party in their attempt to paint the other side as stupid or evil or both, in order to make it so that the American voter will continue giving them power without actually thinking things through carefully enough to realize that we no longer have a representative democracy, we have an oligarchy of the wealthy


I realize that, but I have to hold out hope that one party isn't as bad as the other in this regard or else we are completely screwed unless we revolt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 11:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Another impressive but meaningless sacrificial charge by AURAPTOR.
I sometimes wonder if his anscestors were cavalry officers.



It sure would help matters if you could be less vague.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 2:36 PM

ROCKETJOCK


First, in re: Reagan; I lived through his administration as both a bachelor in the military and a newlywed family man in the reserve. My opinion of him was formed by events as they happened, not dry history or the blush of nostalgic recollection. Frankly, the man both angered me, and scared the living s**t out of me on a daily basis. His stance on drugs, for example, was calculated to make the problem as bad as possible (by cutting rehab program funds), while simultaneously using the resulting increase in addiction to wage a war on civil liberties that continues to this day. And don't get me started on Iran-Contra. His administration showed a massive contempt for the rule of law, and a horrible genius at picking the wrong allies.

And as for the notion that his administration had their hearts in the right places because they were fighting to keep Central America safe from Communism... This reminds me of Monty Python's admonition to "Honor the memory of those who died to keep China British!"

Now onto a sidebar, since someone brought it up: Barak Obama. Unlike those referenced Young Democrats, I actually have researched the man's positions and voting record, and, while I'm not in 100% agreement with him in all ways, I think we could do worse. And frequently have.

Besides, as the saying goes, "You can tell a lot about a man by the enemies he makes"; judging by the way Fox News is grasping to find something to swiftboat the man with, he may just have my vote on general principal. So far, what they've come up with is:

1. His biological father was (gasp!) Muslim!

2. When he was a child, he attended four semesters in a (gasp!) Muslim school!

3. His middle name is (gasp!) Hussein!

4. He is a (gasp!) smoker! (Gasp, gasp, hack, cough, gasp again, wheeze...)

and, my favorite so far (drum roll please)...

5. He hasn't done enough for the black community. Which, coming from Fox News, is not so much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as one of the china teapot calling the kettle too white...



"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 3:09 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by RocketJock:
Besides, as the saying goes, "You can tell a lot about a man by the enemies he makes"; judging by the way Fox News is grasping to find something to swiftboat the man with, he may just have my vote on general principal. So far, what they've come up with is:

1. His biological father was (gasp!) Muslim!

2. When he was a child, he attended four semesters in a (gasp!) Muslim school!

3. His middle name is (gasp!) Hussein!

4. He is a (gasp!) smoker! (Gasp, gasp, hack, cough, gasp again, wheeze...)

and, my favorite so far (drum roll please)...

5. He hasn't done enough for the black community. Which, coming from Fox News, is not so much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as one of the china teapot calling the kettle too white...



I don't know if this was FOX, or someone else, but there was also a reference to him having the same style as Ahmadinejad...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 3:16 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by RocketJock:
4. He is a (gasp!) smoker! (Gasp, gasp, hack, cough, gasp again, wheeze...)



Heh.

As I said, it's the 2nd Amendment thing that worries me. If he wins the nom, though, and if the Republicans put up a stinker, I may just overlook that.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:01 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
As I said, it's the 2nd Amendment thing that worries me. If he wins the nom, though, and if the Republicans put up a stinker, I may just overlook that.



I'm just curious, but was it the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill?

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3597&can_id
=BS030017


"Curiosity killed the cat." Well, it's a good thing I'm not a cat.

(We didn't have enough time to get to Reagan, so I won't comment on that.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Aww..c'mon, I was gonna make that Contra Konomi Code crack myself if someone else hadn't - it's just funny, ya gotta laugh at this stuff sometimes or you'll just go mad.

What do these goons all have in common ?

Karimov
Augustus Pinochet
Manuel Noriega
Adolf Hitler
Papa Doc Duvalier
Osama Bin Laden
Saddam Hussien
The Shah
Mugabe
King Abdullah
Pervez Musharraf
Carlos Castillo Armas

Need I really go on?
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm

Your tax dollars at work, folks.

As for why Chavez hates us, and why his own people adore his lambasting of us ?
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

It's all in the History.

Last word on it - Oliver North may have been a creep, but he was a creep with a certain kind of integrity, a man who "Stays Bought" and I can respect that even if I do not respect what he did.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:38 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Last word on it - Oliver North may have been a creep, but he was a creep with a certain kind of integrity, a man who "Stays Bought" and I can respect that even if I do not respect what he did.


Is it weird that I kinda agree with ya on this??

I must be war-wacky Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:42 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Don't be mad Khyron. Take a pill brother. I ain't mad at cha.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:49 PM

CHRISISALL


SCENARIO #1:
"Ted's a drunk who drives off bridges, Clinton lied to Congress about a b***job and Whitewater, Hillary's a coniving bitch, Obama smells like an ashtray, and your momma is a ho!!!"

"Umm, aside from the personal attack, what's your point, if any?"

SCENARIO #2:
"Reagan was disconnected from what was going on in his own administration, and Bush started this illegal war not because of WMD's...but-"

"Hey you Communist, don't DARE insult Bush that way!!! There WERE WMD's, THERE WERE!!!!!You filthy America-hating jerk! Go to Cuba if you hate it here so much! Oh, but then you wouldn't have the freedom of speech to vilify your leader, which is ALL YOU WANT TO DO ANYWAY!!! You are full of lies!
That's all I have to say to you!"

The political double-standard at work. Like Soup said.
I wonder why?

A thesis to come Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:51 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
As I said, it's the 2nd Amendment thing that worries me. If he wins the nom, though, and if the Republicans put up a stinker, I may just overlook that.



I'm just curious, but was it the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill?



That's the one.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 5:45 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Last word on it - Oliver North may have been a creep, but he was a creep with a certain kind of integrity, a man who "Stays Bought" and I can respect that even if I do not respect what he did.


Is it weird that I kinda agree with ya on this??

I must be war-wacky Chrisisall



Ollie is a true believer. He didn't need to be bought. One of the problems conspiracy nuts have is that they think everyone is as cynical as they are. In truth there realy are people that do things to make 'a better world' even if it it is only beter from a limited point of view.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 10:18 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


It sure would help matters if you could be less vague.
"





"There is your enemy, My Lord. There are your Guns."

Probably does'nt help much does it?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 10:26 PM

RIVER6213


I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

-River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 10:52 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by RocketJock:

Besides, as the saying goes, "You can tell a lot about a man by the enemies he makes"; judging by the way Fox News is grasping to find something to swiftboat the man with, he may just have my vote on general principal. So far, what they've come up with is:

1. His biological father was (gasp!) Muslim!

2. When he was a child, he attended four semesters in a (gasp!) Muslim school!

3. His middle name is (gasp!) Hussein!

4. He is a (gasp!) smoker! (Gasp, gasp, hack, cough, gasp again, wheeze...)

and, my favorite so far (drum roll please)...

5. He hasn't done enough for the black community. Which, coming from Fox News, is not so much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as one of the china teapot calling the kettle too white...


Ya left one out- if ya accidentally ( on purpose ) commit a typo on his last anme, it comes out OSAMA...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 23, 2007 11:23 PM

SINGATE


Fuckin' A!

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:35 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
Quote:


The report published by the Tower Commission, known as the Tower Commission Report, was delivered to the President on February 26, 1987. It criticized the actions of Oliver North, John Poindexter, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others. It did not determine that the President had knowledge of the extent of the program, although it argued that the President ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff.


It's okay, He was only incompetent?

I can imagine the interview:
Interviewer: "So Mr President, how did you come up with you're administrations stances?"
Reagan: "Uhm, erm, err"
Nancy (whispering): "We're doing everything we can, dear."
Reagan: "Oh, yes erm, We're doing everything we can, dear."



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:02 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by RiveR6213:
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...



If by "the site" you mean Earth, I mostly agree, but instead of nukes we should use biological weapons, less damage to the non-human life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:13 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


It sure would help matters if you could be less vague.
"





"There is your enemy, My Lord. There are your Guns."

Probably does'nt help much does it?




"There are your enemy, my Lord ..etc..."
Atributed to Captain Lewis Nolan of the 11th Hussars as he misguidedly urged Lords Lucan and Cardigan to charge the light Brigade down the wrong valley at the battle of Balaclava, 1854.

In other words, well intentioned but completely wrong- ergo Reagan and AURAPTOR.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:51 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!



Will Kill For Coke For The Bushes


The Iran-Contra Wiki article censored the fact that the Christic lawsuit used the RICO Act on the Bush Sr White House, and named Bush and his CIA gang as cocaine kingpins and terrorist bombers, and that the lawsuit named Pablo Escobar as Bush's partner and co-defendant. The case was subverted by corrupt federal judges, who banned virtually all discovery in the civil lawsuit, then dismissed the case 2 days before the jury trial, to obstruct justice and perp treason for the Bush Gang. It's also hard to win when witnesses and defendants get murdered. Note that this CIA terror bombings of the La Penca press conference was designed to kill a CIA CONTRA Eden Pastora, not to kill a Communist in the official Sandanista govt. The CIA's bombing ended up killing and injuring journalists from ABC News in USA.

Quote:


"'Enterprise' means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this state, or other legal entity, or any unchartered union, association or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, and it includes illicit as well as licit enterprises, AND GOVERNMENTAL, as well as other, entities."
—Tennessee Code 39-12-203, Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations RICO Act





At any rate, it did lead to felony convictions for members of the Bush sr White House, and Bush lost the 1992 "election", after Ross Perot quit because Bush planned to murder his family at his daughter's wedding. But Bill Clinton-Blythe III (Rockefeller) was his coke partner at Bush's CIA airport in Mena Arkansas.

Quote:


"The court finds the actions of the government to be most egregious, indeed appalling."
-Judge Patrick Kelly, Midland Nat. Bank v. Conlogue

Midland Nat. Bank v. Conlogue
720 F.Supp. 878
D.Kan.,1989.
Aug. 4, 1989

CIA cocaine aircraft chased by US Customs and sank in the ocean, so CIA bank and CIA insurance corp sued each other to pay for their doper aircraft. Govt lawyers admitted in court, on the public record, that Uncle Scam knowingly and deliberately imported cocaine into USA.
www.geocities.com/iran_contra_christic_institute



My dad was on the Dream Team of 100 lawyers suing the Bush Sr White House to start Iran-Contra. He took the deposition of US ambassador Lewis Tambs, who was expelled by Costa Rica for using the US emabassy for CIA narcotics trafficking. He refuses to talk about that case now. When I asked to read some of his historic files, such as public court records, he hired a tractor-trailer shredder truck instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christic_Institute

Now my dad's on the trillion-dollar dream team sueing Saudi members of Bush & Queen's Carlyle Group for perping the 9/11 terrorist massacres. The Saudi royals and Bin Laden's are defended by Carlyle's counsel James Baker III, who currently has an office in the Jr Bush White House.
www.september11classaction.com/team.html

But the 9/11 victim plaintiffs believe the Bush Gang perped the terror massacres, not the Saudis:

Quote:



www.911pressfortruth.com

Our goal has NEVER been to get Bin Laden."
— General Richard Myers, chairman, US joint chiefs of staff at Pentagon, 9/11 Press for Truth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250

“The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did NOT plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders’ rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.”
—Usama bin Laden, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

“We've NEVER made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has NEVER been forthcoming."
— Dick Cheney, WhiteHouse.gov, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

"9/11 is NOT mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page. He has NOT been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has NO hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
—Rex Tomb, FBI spokesman, FBI Most Wanted Terrorists webpage, June 6, 2006
www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

QUESTION: "Mr President, in your speeches, you rarely mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?"
GEORGE BUSH JR: "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him."
— WhiteHouse.gov,

"Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of TERRORISM within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba."
—James Bamford, ABC News, "Friendly Fire: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba", May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

"We could develop a Communist Cuba TERROR campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. Hijacking attampts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. The drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency "MAY DAY" message stating it is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal."
—General Lyman Lemnitzer, Jewish Zionist chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon, Memo to Secretary of War Robert McNamara, Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba - Operation NORTHWOODS, March 13, 1962
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

"The FBI has issued a BOLO on suspected terrorists driving a white delivery van from New York City to the Mexican border. The suspects are using ISRAELI passports. They are considered armed and dangerous."
— Emergency 911 Dispatch, BOLO (Be On the LookOut), All-Points-Bulletin (APB), City-County Building, Knoxville, Knox County, Tennessee, September 11, 2001, 11am EST -- Fox News Video

=

"Tasks are typically divided into small parts, and no single person can complete any job alone. Moreover, people are generally not encouraged or rewarded for doing other than their assigned jobs or for undertaking actions independent of their supervisors. It is possible for individuals... to do their jobs well and still produce a deviant action. Courageous insiders may blow the whistle and alert the rest of us, or suspicious outsiders may take a careful look and reveal what they have found."
—Professor M. David Erman, PhD and Professor Richard J. Lundman, PhD, from college textbook Corporate and GOVERNMENTAL DEVIANCE: Problems of Organizational Behavior in Contemporary Society



"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."
— George Bush Jr, a homosexual transvestite cheerleader, a convicted drunk driver, an AWOL draft deserter demoted from pilot to mail clerk for refusing lawful order for drug test and sentenced to six months extra duty, arrested for theft, vandalism and cocaine (confessed guilt and expunged after paying restitution by diversion), sued for rape and sued for perping the 9/11 terrorist massacres, who performs mock human sacrifice to worship Satan at Bohemian Grove, who ate off Adolf Hitler's Nazi silverware at Yale Skull & Bones, whose father is the narco kingpin of North America partnered with Pablo Escobar who perped terrorist bombings during Iran-Contra and told Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, whose grandfather Prescott Bush was arrested and handcuffed 3 times and paid a $750,000 forfeiture under the Trading With The Enemy Act for arming Nazi Germany DURING World War 2, whose ancester Constable Thomas Percy was gunned down and summarily executed for the terrorist bombing of British Parliament in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (aka V for Vendetta)
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/174



When James Baker was Bush Sr's secretary of state, he ordered US ambassador April Glaspie to tell Saddam it was okay with USA to invade Kuwait.

Quote:




US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie: "I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business."

President Saddam Hussein: "As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."

Glaspie: "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

President Saddam Hussein: (smiles)
-Videotaped meeting between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador April Glaspie, July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)



Journalist 2: "You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait."

Journalist 1: "You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?"

US Ambassador Glaspie: "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
-US Embassy, Baghdad, Iraq, September 2, 1990




Iran-Contra was actually Iran-Iraq-Israel-Contra, since the US weapons Bush illegally gave to Iran and Iraq were brokered by Israel.

The only difference now is that Afghan and Mexican heroin production are up 1,000%, thanks to Jr Bush, CIA, MI6 and WWW.SPP.GOV.

Quote:


George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography

Chapter -XVIII- Iran- Contra
www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook/bush18.html

by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin
www.republicbroadcasting.org


According to Dr Tarpley PhD, the Bush Iran-Contra Gang perped the 9/11 terrorist massacres in USA. They are criminals. That's what criminals do when nobody has the guts to arrest them.
www.piratenews.org/911con.html



My job in US Air Force in England was sabotage of US jet bombers, and sabotage of US nuclear bombs, using explosive demolitions (C4 shape charges) and detonation cord. The only way 1,000s of Super Thermate and British RDX bombs could be installed in WTC was with years of work, under full supervision of Sir Rudy Giuliani Knight of the British Empire and Uncle Scam.




"You can't stop the signal! Even when you stab me with that sword, you effin psycho copster."
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556

www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org


Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:57 AM

WHODIED


Did the Bushies secretly hijack this thread as well?

--WhoDied
_______________________

All those secrets you've been concealing
Say you're happy now...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:34 PM

CITIZEN


PirateNews rapes children.

We report, you decide.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:31 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Your tax dollars at work, folks.

As for why Chavez hates us, and why his own people adore his lambasting of us ?

It's not just Chavez either.

Our meddling enablement of some of the most oppressive people/governments on earth has people hating America everywhere. Fortunately, most of those folks can distinguish between American govt and American people, and do not hold us personally accountable for the evil deeds of our govt. (They wouldn't want to be held accountable for the evil deeds of theirs.)

But here's where it gets complicated. It isn't just our tax dollars that enable dictators. Private charity donations are often skimmed or robbed entirely by those dictators. Then, sometimes they DO blame the American people.

My hub was in a restaurant in Tanzania once, when an Ethiopian saw him and suddenly jumped on him. My hub defended himself, and finally got to talk to this guy. It turns out that the guy's family has just been killed, by warlords who bought new arms with money donated through some "Save the Ethiopians" charity concert. Boy, he hated Americans. My hub had to explain that he never donates to charity, and the guy was ok after that.

At the risk of being called an isolationist (I don't like that label because I do believe in lots of cultural exchange and trade), I do think the best thing to do in most situations is to leave other countries alone. Good fences make good neighbors.

And Reagan was an ass. Every single president we've ever had was an ass, esp. in the last century.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 26, 2007 1:45 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
PirateNews rapes children.

We report, you decide.





That's rather harsh, and he speaks of you so highly.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 26, 2007 3:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Actually that one's a noteable improvement in presentation with much better sourcing, but he's still gotta work on culling it down to the attention span of the average netcruiser.

Marked improvement, but a long way to go, sure.

He's not half as a crazy as you think he is.

On the interest of fairness, PN, have a go at Clinton in the other thread as well, wouldja ?

Be interestin to see the Foster Files if you have a link for em.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 26, 2007 5:50 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
That's rather harsh, and he speaks of you so highly.

Like Fox and Pirate News I didn't check the validity of that information, I just reported it.

You decide.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 26, 2007 11:45 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I'll grant you that you might shrug. But I think you'd have a hard time making the case that only the right has wacko-extremists who go apoplectic if you criticize the politician du jour. There are certainly people on the left that are every bit as extreme in their devotions as people on the right. There are people every bit as intolerant and offensive (to wit: I have, on this board, been told that burning Christians at the stake would be entertaining). It may be the case, Soup, that you are one of the folks on the left who doesn't by into the cult of personality being erected around, for instance, Hilary Clinton. But that doesn't mean that there aren't extremists on your side of the aisle, as well. I guess my real concern here is that once one side feels free to label the other as "moronic," they subsequently stop listening to what the other has to say. And pardon me if I'm terribly naive, but I happen to think that open dialogue among all sensible people (and not just those who agree with you) is the way to move the country forward.


Sounds good in theory. But how many times do liberals have to be burned before they stop sticking their hands in the fire? I can turn on Rush Limbaugh, or pick up a book by Ann Coulter, or listen in to Fox News Channel and find out that I, as a self-described liberal, am a traitor. There are significant voices on the right that want to harm and ultimately silence tens of millions of Americans simply because of what we believe. And they have a huge audience. I see nobody in positions of authority, with a wide ranging audience and access to broad distribution avenues, on the left advocating for what prominent conservatives daily argue for. There absolutely are people on the left who are every bit as intolerant as those on the right. The big difference is that they have zero power, zero credibility, and zero platform. Whereas, on the right, the intolerant ones are the ones who have been running the show for the past twelve years. Be careful that you don't fall into the mainstream media trap of setting up false equivalencies in an effort for balance.

On a side note, I recommend that you look into the work of Bob Altemeyer (he's the researcher whose work John Dean - former Nixon lawyer and self-described "Goldwater conservative" - relied on heavily in writing Conservatives without Conscience). Dean asked Altemeyer to write a layman's primer to his decades worth of research on right wing authoritarians and Altemeyer is making that treatise available for free at the following link: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Here's some excerpts from the introduction:
Quote:

excerpted from http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
...
But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you'll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack - and by the American government no less! The mid-term elections of 2006 give hope that the best values and traditions of the country will ultimately prevail. But it could prove a huge mistake to think that the enemies of freedom and equality have lost the war just because they were recently rebuffed at the polls. I'll be very much surprised if their leaders don't frame the setback as a test of the follower's faith, causing them to redouble their efforts. They came so close to getting what they want, they're not likely to pack up and go away without an all-out drive. But even if they temporarily fade from view, they will still be there, aching for a dictatorship that will force their views on everyone. The country is not out of danger yet.

The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence. Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both. Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But the arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that's a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that's a body of facts that demand attention.{3} Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don't care a hoot what scientific investigation reveals. But most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, "Sez you!"

The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark? By the time you have finished this book, I think you will understand the reasons. All of this, and much more, fit into place once you see what research has uncovered going on in authoritarian minds.
...
{3} I hope you'll agree that the studies were fair and square. It's your call, of course, and everybody else's. That's the beauty of the scientific method. If another researcher - and there are hundreds of them - thinks I only got the results I did because of the particular way I set things up, phrased things, and so on, she can repeat my experiment her way, find out, and let everybody know what happened. It's the wonderful way science polices and corrects itself.


* I typed the passages from a printout, so any typos are probably mine . *

** edited to add another paragraph to the quote and to add in the footnote **

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:44 AM

CAUSAL


Just so you know, Soup, I'm not making apologies for the right. I'm saying that people on the left are every bit as intolerant (though in different ways). Think of someone like Sam Harris, who in Letter to a Christian Nation proposes that tolerance should not be extended to religious believers, that such people ought to be marginalized and kept out of places where they can do harm to society as a whole. That sounds an awful lot like the same sorts of things that are said on the right. Dogmatism demands that boths sides see themselves as better than the other. I'm not defending the right or the left. I'm trying to propose a middle way by which we get rid our two-party system, which does nothing but polarize the country and alienate it from itself.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:45 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Save 'hero' for peeps that face death overseas, firefighters or EMS workers and the like. Or ficticious dudes like Kirk or Reynolds.


And me!

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:48 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
My dad was on the Dream Team of 100 lawyers suing the Bush Sr White House to start Iran-Contra.

Now my dad's on the trillion-dollar dream team sueing Saudi members of Bush & Queen's Carlyle Group for perping the 9/11 terrorist massacres.


Wow, thats totally unbelievable. I mean its the most outragous thing I've EVER heard you or ANYONE say...you KNOW who your father is? I just don't believe it.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:45 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
My dad was on the Dream Team of 100 lawyers suing the Bush Sr White House to start Iran-Contra.

Now my dad's on the trillion-dollar dream team sueing Saudi members of Bush & Queen's Carlyle Group for perping the 9/11 terrorist massacres.


Wow, thats totally unbelievable. I mean its the most outragous thing I've EVER heard you or ANYONE say...you KNOW who your father is? I just don't believe it.

H



PN's father thinks it's a conspiracy and the DNA evidence has been tampered with. He has 1000's of websites to prove it!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:51 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

Wow, thats totally unbelievable. I mean its the most outragous thing I've EVER heard you or ANYONE say...you KNOW who your father is?

My dad sent me to Earth as a baby, then unfortunatly his whole planet blew up.

Thought I'd top PN Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:40 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
My dad sent me to Earth as a baby, then unfortunatly his whole planet blew up.


Your comment sparked the following exchange that ran through my head...

S Mom: ALL you had to do was watch our son for a few minutes while I went to the store. And you couldn't even handle that!?! What kind of a stupid idiot uses his transgalactic jalopy as a crib and forgets that he left the keys in the ignition????

S Dad: You can't talk to me like that! I'M THE PATER FAMILIAS.

S Mom: Not anymore you're not. The first thing I'm doing is going to the courthouse for a divorce. Then I'm going to this backwater hick planet called Earth to get MY son back.

S Dad: The hell you say. NOBODY leaves me.

* click *

KABOOM

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:15 PM

CHRISISALL


*tear*
That's how it went...

I've heard it said Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:34 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Sounds good in theory. But how many times do liberals have to be burned before they stop sticking their hands in the fire? I can turn on Rush Limbaugh, or pick up a book by Ann Coulter, or listen in to Fox News Channel and find out that I, as a self-described liberal, am a traitor. There are significant voices on the right that want to harm and ultimately silence tens of millions of Americans simply because of what we believe. And they have a huge audience. I see nobody in positions of authority, with a wide ranging audience and access to broad distribution avenues, on the left advocating for what prominent conservatives daily argue for. There absolutely are people on the left who are every bit as intolerant as those on the right. The big difference is that they have zero power, zero credibility, and zero platform. Whereas, on the right, the intolerant ones are the ones who have been running the show for the past twelve years. Be careful that you don't fall into the mainstream media trap of setting up false equivalencies in an effort for balance.



Also, here's a question. When someone says "The Republicans may not all be racists, but on the whole, the Republican party is the party is discriminatory and bigoted" how is that any different than saying "Race X might not all be bad quality Y, but on the whole, Xs are Y"? Seriously, pick your racial stereotype--think of the worst one you can think of. Now I think that even the most racist person would say that not everyone in that group is that way--just that on the whole, they are. How is that any different from what you're doing when you paint a large group of people with as broad a brush as that? How is that any less stereotyped?

And I just also want to say (because it has to be) that it only seems like "false equivalence" because of your pre-existing beliefs.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:44 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Also, here's a question. When someone says "The Republicans may not all be racists, but on the whole, the Republican party is the party is discriminatory and bigoted" how is that any different than saying "Race X might not all be bad quality Y, but on the whole, Xs are Y"? Seriously, pick your racial stereotype--think of the worst one you can think of. Now I think that even the most racist person would say that not everyone in that group is that way--just that on the whole, they are. How is that any different from what you're doing when you paint a large group of people with as broad a brush as that? How is that any less stereotyped?

And I just also want to say (because it has to be) that it only seems like "false equivalence" because of your pre-existing beliefs.


The short answer is that you have to look at what the people at the top are doing. By top I mean those who are either party leaders or who have tremendous influence over party leaders or the talking points that the party disseminates to its members.

The Republican Party, since the time of Nixon, has been the party of the Southern Strategy - the embracing of bigotry in order to get votes. Where do you think all the Dixiecrats went when they left the Democratic Party in the sixties? They didn't just stop trying to preserve the institutionalized racism that had been built back into the system from 1890 onwards. They kept working at it.

So, yes, I do see the leadership of the Republican Party as engaging in a strategy designed to appeal to racists. There was a reason that Reagan made a speech by Philadelphia, Mississippi while stumping for President in 1980 and talked about states rights. And it had less to do with the fair that he was attending and more to do with who was killed in that region and why.

That's the short version.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:03 PM

CAUSAL


So...you're saying that the mere desire to win the votes of southerners means that the Republicans are racists? Are you suggesting that southerners are racists who only respond to a racist ideology?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'd like to enter here. It WOULD be fair to say "all members of the KKK are bigoted" because it's a self-selected group based on bigotry. That's not an example of racism. Similarly, it would be fair to say 'many white southerners are bigoted' not because it's a racial characteristic of whites, but because it's a historical trend.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:12 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
So...you're saying that the mere desire to win the votes of southerners means that the Republicans are racists? Are you suggesting that southerners are racists who only respond to a racist ideology?


I'm saying that you need to research what exactly the Southern strategy entailed and why Ken Mehlman felt the need to apologize for it when he spoke before the NAACP.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:14 PM

CAUSAL


Point granted. But it is not fair to say "all southerners are racists"--but that's what Soup's thesis seems to be suggesting. The way he's reasoning it might also be suggested, "The southern states are the bible belt and the Republican push for southern states is an effort to bring religious voters into the party." Suggesting that the Republican party is going south because it's racist down there is, frankly, insulting both to the GOP and to the south in general.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:25 PM

CAUSAL


Mmm...double-posty goodness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:26 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm saying that you need to research what exactly the Southern strategy entailed and why Ken Mehlman felt the need to apologize for it when he spoke before the NAACP.



OK, sorry about the lack of time to research this as thoroughly as you have. But I'm curious: does a bad (out-dated) strategy which was subsequently abandoned and apologized for make them all evil?

By the by, I totally understand why the right-wingers among us don't last long on these boards. They're called racists, bigots, and morons and shouted down without any real discussion taking place.

Edited to add: the following is a general purpose rant, and not directed personally at you, Soup.

With all due respect, Soup, the point in all this is that both sides of this particular debate can muster exactly the same kind of argument against the other side. Interestingly, on these boards you won't see many arguments of this sort against Democrats. Not because they can't be made, but because no one here is interested. Frankly, neither am I, because I happen to believe that the two-party system is destroying our democracy, and that the two-party system is perpetuated by exactly this sort of blindly dogmatic argumenary style. I can't muster the same sorts of arguments against Democrats because I don't fucking care about the Democrats. I also (demonstrably) can't do so against the Republicans because I don't fucking care about them either. What I do fucking care about is the dogmatism that allows both sides of the so-called red/blue split to not have to seriously consider the possibility that the parties only differ on a slender selection of hot-button issues. I find it exceedingly disturbing when we allow ourselves to dismiss people and their arguments on the sole basis that they are from the "racist" republican party or the "immoral" democratic one. Our system is broke, our people are at each others throats, nothing is changing (other than the progressive slide of this country into oligarchy), but we call each morons vigorously enough not to be concerned that our so-called representatives only represent their own avarice and lust for power.

Edited to add: having made my point and having been (predictably) shouted down, I'll simply withdraw at this point. Just please don't see it as the concession of a Republican, because I'm not one.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:44 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Point granted. But it is not fair to say "all southerners are racists"--but that's what Soup's thesis seems to be suggesting. The way he's reasoning it might also be suggested, "The southern states are the bible belt and the Republican push for southern states is an effort to bring religious voters into the party." Suggesting that the Republican party is going south because it's racist down there is, frankly, insulting both to the GOP and to the south in general.


I'm saying that every single American is exposed to bigotry and racism on a daily basis from the moment they are born. This used to be much more tolerated. Today, at the very least, people seem to understand when they are making prejudicial statements. Do they stop and think about why they hold those viewpoints? Not really. They get irritated that their parents and grandparents were able to get away with saying a lot more than they could. They may sneak in a little aside, "I know this isn't politically correct BUT..." or they just hold off until they are in like-minded company.

From my point of view, we are a racist society. We have never dealt with the mindset that was necessary for one segment of the population to own another segment of the population. It's a stain on the soul of our country and will remain there because it is not in the best interests of the majority of the population to deal with it.

But it wouldn't be that big of a problem, in my point of view, if all it was was personal viewpoints. However, and this is a big however, when racism is institutionalized then you have the power of the state (or other organization) behind the discrimination. We have not completely purged the institutionalized racism that was been present in our system since the founding. Some progress was made after the Civil War but a lot of that was ripped up following the great retreat that begain around 1890. Some progress was made during the Civil Rights era but we are in the process of seeing the pushback against that.

When you have a political party taking advantage of the bigotry (which is what the Southern strategy - as articulated back in the late sixties - was) then yes, I consider that party a racist party. And supporters of that party, who are aware of this policy and knowingly support the party, are enabling racism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:05 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Point granted. But it is not fair to say "all southerners are racists"--but that's what Soup's thesis seems to be suggesting.


I want to come back to this sentence and come at it from a different way. The southern states had a different way of dealing with blacks than the rest of the country. A large number of control mechanisms had been put in place to make sure that the slaves couldn't easily rise up and take out those who they outnumbered. These control mechanisms really didn't go away after the end of the Civil War.

In parts of the North and all of the West, these control mechanisms were not in place. So the response to the dispersion of freed slaves was different. The creation of sundown towns and sundown suburbs led to enforced segregation in the North and West. In other words, the Southern strategy was not necessary in the West because African Americans had been forced into the inner cities - in those areas Republicans just weren't competitive and they didn't even try. Where, in the Southern strategy, the Republicans went after white voters who were disgruntled at seeing black voters voting Democratic, those communities were not really intermingled in the West.

Different kinds of racism. Look at where the Klan was most successful during the early twentieth century rebirth. It was in places like Indiana and Ohio, not the South. Oregon had a health Klan presence with statewide elected officials. (* eta: And, at this point in our country's history, the Klan was pretty much a subset of the Democratic Party *) Wyoming went from 30 percent population ethnic Chinese to damn near zero during the great retreat period. (* eta: Actually, it was Idaho. Not Wyoming. I misremembered ).

Institutionalized racism comes in different flavors in the North and West and South but the smell is the same.

* edited to add:
One of the most eye-opening experiences I had in my life was moving from Los Angeles (where I spent the first eighteen years of my life) to a small southeastern Washington town. I had grown up in a diverse neighborhood where the fact that my mother was white and my father brown didn't mean a damn thing. And then I moved to an area where it did. That really surprised me. But, as I thought back upon growing up, I hadn't lived in a racism free environment. It was just a lot more subtle because no one group was dominant. Where there was a clear racial majority the implications of bigotry became much more apparent. I'm not sure how that fits into all this, but it may shed some light on why I find the topic so important. I find any organization that cynically uses the lingering affects of our peculiar institution to grab and maintain power repugnant. And I don't see the Republican Party as having given up the Southern Strategy. They have just shifted who the "other" is in the equation. After all when something works you don't throw it away.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:38 - 43 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:38 - 45 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL