PDA

View Full Version : No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'



llotter
06-09-2011, 09:04 AM
I am expecting to receive my copy of David Mamet's new book, "The Secret Knowledge On the Dismantling of American Culture," this week and I'm anxious to find the tipping point that helped Mamet see the light. After reading several reviews, I thought it would be interesting but I am not confident at all that the people that should read it, will.

LWW
06-09-2011, 03:49 PM
I look forward to reading it, I imagine his epiphany was similar to mine.

I'm happy to see you are at a a minimum entertaining thoughts not implanted by the party.

llotter
06-09-2011, 04:03 PM
The book came in the mail this afternoon and the first page piqued my interest by delineating the 'drama' in the positions of the Democrats and Republicans in the 2008 election. The author is a dramatist/Hollywood screen/play writer and this is the drama that caught his attention and is catching mine. The brevity and conciseness of Mamet's writing is admirable as each sentence packs a lot of punch.

Soflasnapper
06-09-2011, 04:16 PM
There are non-brain-dead liberals, just as there are non-brain-dead conservatives, just are there are brain-dead variants of both sides as well.

Where we go wrong is either being brain-dead ourselves, and/or by being convinced that anyone who disagrees with us is brain-dead.

Most of us have the experience that on occasion sometimes smart informed people may disagree with our take on this or that situation. Which doesn't make them or us right or wrong, as reasonable people can indeed disagree on things, as matters of opinion or by emphasizing different aspects of the situation as more critical factors.

LWW
06-09-2011, 04:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The book came in the mail this afternoon and the first page piqued my interest by delineating the 'drama' in the positions of the Democrats and Republicans in the 2008 election. The author is a dramatist/Hollywood screen/play writer and this is the drama that caught his attention and is catching mine. The brevity and conciseness of Mamet's writing is admirable as each sentence packs a lot of punch. </div></div>

Right now I'm reading "DECISION POINTS" ... "DEMONIC" ... "AGAINST ALL ENEMIES" ... "DREAMS FROM MY FATHER" ... and trying to attack the "Q'URAN" as best I can, it's such a disjointed work ... and "COMMON SENSE" so my plate is full.

llotter
06-09-2011, 04:42 PM
Yes, and while you are equivocating within your moral relativism, the world is crashing down all around us from the same purity of non-judgmental non-sequitur/stupidity.

Soflasnapper
06-09-2011, 04:52 PM
Hmmm. Unpredicated hostility. Or was it something I said?

Perhaps you think all liberals are brain-dead, and no conservatives are?

cushioncrawler
06-09-2011, 05:36 PM
David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture" comes with a built-in get-out-of-jail-free card: Dispute it and you're part of the problem, a defender of the liberal orthodoxy. Such is the case, I suppose, with any polemic, but here the author is especially adamant. "The struggle of the Left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable, Sisyphean burden. I speak as a reformed Liberal," he declares in a statement deemed significant, or inflammatory, enough to reproduce across the bottom of the book's cover.

I beg to differ, but what do I know? I write for the mainstream media.

Actually, the media is not Mamet's main concern in "The Secret Knowledge," although he does offer up his share of barbed remarks. He's got bigger fish to fry. Among his targets: liberal education, the New Deal, Al Sharpton, global warming, "Obamacare" and the bailout of the auto industry. If such a list sounds familiar, that's because the bulk of it is made of Fox News talking points, generalities equating liberalism with socialism and framing it as venal, lazy, anti-American — a children's crusade with no understanding of realpolitik.

"Liberalism is a religion," Mamet writes in a typically unsupported statement. "Its tenets cannot be proved, its capacity for waste and destruction demonstrated." But as to what this means, he remains vague and imprecise. Throughout the book, he makes definitive statements with no basis in reality about multiculturalism, the state of the university, the ability of the free market to self-correct.

For Mamet, the fact that "[t]he young on the Westside of Los Angeles dress themselves in jeans worn, sanded, and razored to resemble something a six-month castaway might crawl ashore in" is an expression not of the idiocy of style but of "a charade of victimization, as the ethos of the Liberal West holds that these victims are the only ones of worth." His critique of affirmative action relies on a dismissal of race — "When," he asks, "was the last time you heard a racist remark or saw racial discrimination at school or work?" — that is so divorced from the reality of many Americans you have to wonder where he lives.

cushioncrawler
06-09-2011, 05:37 PM
Iz there any mention of injuns??????
mac.

cushioncrawler
06-09-2011, 05:50 PM
I just then woz reading page 1 on google. It iz a shit read. How kan anyone enjoy reading that shit. So badly written. Shit logik, ie shit prezentation of ideas & fakts, ie shit order, ie shit flow. Shit to read.
It reminds me of a Roman Kathlick sort of book that i bort once, but koodnt read. Made my (logikal) brain hurt. My brain had to try to store shit while reading more shit, looking, looking, remembering, remembering, waiting in vain for some logik or something that miraculously brort all the shit together and made a good point.
No such luck.
I would be brain dead within 10 minutes if i kept reading that shit.

On the other hand i might agree with much of what iz in the book. I will never know. U karnt excuse for one minute that shit style of writing.
mac.

llotter
06-09-2011, 06:35 PM
Right. I think to the extent that liberals are statists, they are brain-dean.

Qtec
06-09-2011, 11:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If such a list sounds familiar, that's because the bulk of it is made of Fox News talking points, </div></div>

What a surprise! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Q

LWW
06-10-2011, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmm. Unpredicated hostility. Or was it something I said?

Perhaps you think all liberals are brain-dead, and no conservatives are? </div></div>

Attend an Obama rally and get back to me.

Soflasnapper
06-10-2011, 09:10 AM
Mob scenes are often humanity at its worst. Both sides.

LWW
06-10-2011, 09:31 AM
Where is the right wing mob?

Gayle in MD
06-10-2011, 09:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right. I think to the extent that liberals are statists, they are brain-dean. </div></div>

But your problem is that to the extent that conservatives are statists, does not mean THEY are brain dead.

What could be more "Statist" than trying to use the law, to dictate what others do with their own bodies, according to your personal religious beliefs.
\
What could be more statist than forcing women to look at sonograms, before making personal, private decisions?

What could be more statist, than trying to use the Government, to protect polluters, who are killing people with their filth, to they can continue to pollute the environment, and kill more people, for their corporate profits.

What could be more statist, than trying to criminalize, personal, private decisions, which are none of your business?

While we are watching Repiglicans try to do just that, AND maintain their scewed Tax Structure, favoring the wealthy with loopholes, and pollution friendly legislation, in order to continue with their social engineering, by securing most of the wealth, for the top, richest among us, hence, you fail to grasp the "Statism" of the right.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Every Repiglican Governor, is practicing Statism, when thhey seek to destroy Unions, bargaining rights of pupblic employees, and remove a person's right to secure birth control, and/or have total control, over their own body.

All of that is what I would call, GROSS statism....

You are a statist, yourself.

Wake up! You righties, and particularly you Evangelical Righties, are ALL statists, wannabe dictators.


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Fascist, n.

And adherent of fascism, or other right wing authoritarian views.</span>

G.

eg8r
06-10-2011, 11:18 AM
Are you saying that at all right wing rallies there are not those less than desirables types showing up? You don't agree there are problem "children" on both sides?

eg8r

LWW
06-10-2011, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you saying that at all right wing rallies there are not those less than desirables types showing up? You don't agree there are problem "children" on both sides?

eg8r </div></div>

I didn't say that at all.

I asked where the mob was?

Yes, there are lone wolf anarchists on the far right wing who naively believe that eliminating the state entirely will take us to Shangri La ... and are willing to resort to violence to achieve it.

That isn't a mob, it's a nut.

Compare that to the organized union thuggery going on across America ... and worse in Eurabia ... on an ongoing basis.

Soflasnapper
06-11-2011, 07:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am expecting to receive my copy of David Mamet's new book, "The Secret Knowledge On the Dismantling of American Culture," this week and I'm anxious to find the tipping point that helped Mamet see the light. After reading several reviews, I thought it would be interesting but I am not confident at all that the people that should read it, will. </div></div>

Here are some of the current positions of Mamet, including saying many things are true that would make heads explode here:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush stole the election in Florida</span>; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush outed a CIA agent</span>; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush lied about his military service</span>; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.</div></div>

Why I am no longer a brain-dead liberal/Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/full)

LWW
06-11-2011, 08:27 PM
Whose head would they make explode?

Qtec
06-11-2011, 11:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whose head would they make explode? </div></div>

Eh........yours for one!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush <u>stole</u> the election in Florida; .......Bush <u>outed</u> a CIA agent; ......... Bush <u>lied </u>about his military service; </div></div>

Q

LWW
06-12-2011, 03:53 AM
1 - If you read the article, which we both know you didn't, you would realize the quote was taken out of context.

2 - I have heard you and the cabal regurgitating this pap for years, so it is simply boring at this point.

Soflasnapper
06-12-2011, 01:39 PM
That was not taken out of context; I provided the link to the whole interview, and of course, I read it all.

I disagree with his juxtapositions, as it is not true that Kennedy got us into Vietnam, that he was in with the Mob, nor that he left 100s of CIA agents to die at the Bay of Pigs.

However I think it droll that a man celebrated here for turning his ideology around from being a brain-dead liberal even IN THAT STATEMENT says he agrees with three things about Bush that are at the heart of the catechism of liberal charges against him, and which many conservatives think are entirely made up crap charges that are easily disproven on the facts.

LWW
06-12-2011, 06:26 PM
Other than there being zero evidence of amy of the three, you may a good argument.

Now ... are you seriously denting that JFK abandoned people at the Bay of Pigs?

Whether or not JFK stole an election is highly arguable both ways.

Qtec
06-12-2011, 07:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Other than there being <u>zero evidence</u> of amy of the three </div></div>

LOL. S was right, to accept any of these facts would make your head explode.
Q

LWW
06-13-2011, 01:25 AM
Other than also having zero evidence, your case is quite compelling.

Gayle in MD
06-14-2011, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right. I think to the extent that liberals are statists, they are brain-dean. </div></div>

It is the right, linked with the religious radicals, which is fascists, and this has always been so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“running Congress” during the Clinton years… hhh, tricky concept. shutting it down, trying to block all legislative proposals originating with the Prez or his party, while grandstanding to pass largely symbolic red meat for their wingnut constituencies — yes, that would be the Republicans.

But if we’re talking about Clinton’s 1993 Budget Reduction Act — which lead to balance then surpluses — that would be a wholly Democratic effort, passed without a single Republican vote. The budget-exploding efforts since 2000, both fall the feet of republicans (true, some democrats supported them too): (1) Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and (2) Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits. In neither case, did the R’s suggest a way for paying for the new and enormous raids on the Treasury they would be making for years to come. It doesn’t take a cynic like me to see that there was no political need; when legitimate challenges were made to the enormous deficits stretching out to the horizon, the Repubs could (and did) accuse their opponents of “abandoning our troops in harm’s way” and showing inadequate concern for our nations seniors, blah-dee-blah.



It’s ALL about FA$CI$M, folks, and FA$CI$T$ will parse anything and everything necessary to defeat DEMOCRACY for the power and riches that await them as toadies for FA$CI$M, even Christianity and Democracy. Power CORRUPTS, and nowhere will it corrupt as completely and thoroughly as FA$CI$M, which is a social disease running on psychopaths, sociopaths, hypocrisy, and total convenient falsehood.
Kurt Vonnegut had their number. Maybe you should too, if you want a




Neo-fascism and religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This series is linked to the Politics and Elections series
Part of the Politics series on
Neo-Fascism
Core ideas[show]
Nationalism · Authoritarianism · Third Position · Single-party state · Dictatorship · Social Darwinism · Social interventionism · Indoctrination · Propaganda · Eugenics · Heroism · Militarism · Economic interventionism · Extremism · Christian Identity · Anti-communism
Varieties[show]
Neo-Nazism

Third Position
White nationalism
White supremacy
Peronism


Pan-European nationalism

Origins[show]
Clerical fascism

Fascism
Italian Fascism
Nazism
Strasserism
Iron Guard


Falange

Movements[show]
American Nazi Party

Aryan Nations
British Movement
British National Front
Deutsche Reichspartei
Forza Nuova
Fiamma Tricolore
Golden Dawn (Greece)
International Third Position
Italian Social Movement–National Right
National Alliance
National Democratic Party of Germany
National Renaissance Party
National Social Front
National Socialist Front
National Socialist Movement (United States)
National Socialist Party of America
Noua Dreaptă (Romania)
November 9th Society
Official National Front
People's Alliance for Democracy (Thailand)
Russian National Unity
Social Action
Socialist Reich Party
SUMKA
Union Movement


World Union of National Socialists

People[show]
Georgios Papadopoulos
Alparslan Türkeş
George Lincoln Rockwell

Organizations[show]
Argentine Anticommunist Alliance · Bolivian Socialist Falange · Greek military junta of 1967–1974 · National Liberation Movement · Iranian National Front · Kataeb Party · Grey Wolves · New European Order · International Third Position
History[show]
Operation Condor · Greek 1967 Coup d'etat · Guatemalan 1963 Coup d'etat · Borghese Coup · Piazza Fontana bombing · Nazism in America
Related topics[show]
Far right · Fascism and ideology · Islamofascism · Ku Klux Klan · Nazi punk · Neo-fascism and religion · Neo-Nazi groups of the United States · Political Soldier · Roman salute · White fist · Fascist socialization · White power skinhead ·

Fascism portal
Politics portal
v · d · e
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Neo-fascism and religion refers to debates about the relationships between neo-fascism and various religions.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some scholars, using the term neo-fascism in its narrow sense, consider certain contemporary religious movements and groups to represent forms of clerical or theocratic neofascism, including Christian Identity in the United States; some militant forms of politicized Islamic fundamentalism; State Shinto as a political cult in Imperial Japan and some neopagan alternative religions advocating white supremacism.</span>

Background

[edit] Terminology and history
Main article: Fascism
The term fascism was first used in Italy during the 1920s, and like Nazism, its meaning came to refer to a type of union of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>right wing concepts of authoritarian political controls</span> with welfare state economic policies. The term neo-fascism is used to describe fascist movements active after World War II.

Modern colloquial usage of the word sometimes extends the definition of the terms fascism & neo-fascism and Neo-Nazism to refer to any <span style='font-size: 14pt'>totalitarian worldview</span>, regardless of its religious ideology. Although the assertion that religious fundamentalists and militants are fascists can often be understood as a hyperbole, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>some scholars have used the term when discussing certain religious movements</span>.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, authoritarian ideals saw a resurgence in the context of political upheavals across Eurasia, typically anti-aristocratic socio-political revolutions. The ethnic-rooted conflicts of World War I and World War II arose from the political circumstances brought about by internal societal battles, usually between left-wing revolutionaries and right-wing traditionalists.



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In addition to the authoritarian political model, most scholars classify fascism as an extreme right ideology, along with ethnic-populist movements that call for increased traditionalism. </span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>In the context of civil conflicts, the demand for increased traditionalism typically promotes ethnocentrism, and in extreme cases this ethnic unity resulted in the persecution of those not within the chosen ethnic group. Religion has often been an aspect of ethnicity, whose moral foundation and message may grow corrupted by the societal acceptance of convergence between political and religious populism.</span>

Between the two world wars, there were three forms of fascism: Italian economic corporatism; German racial nationalist Nazism; and clerical fascist movements such as the Romanian Iron Guard and the Croatian Ustashi.

[edit] Controversies over linking fascism and religion
Since WWII, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>neofascists have reinterpreted fascist ideology and strategy in various ways to fit new circumstances</span>.[1]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In the context of social conflict in which religious figures and institutions come under partisan influence, religion often becomes a political tool by which principled authority is replaced by authoritarian violence</span>. Early fascism was a mixture of syndicalist notions with Hegelian or idealistic theories of the state. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Both early and later fascists viewed the state as an organic entity rather than as an institution to protect collective and individual rights</span>. Fascists often defined themselves in opposition to laissez-faire capitalism, Marxism, and democracy.

During World War II, Karl Popper described fascism as different from Hegelianism, which was bound to a specific "traditional religious form" (Lutheran Christianity in Frederick William's Prussia).[2] Popper suggests that in fascism, religion is usually replaced by a form of evolutionist materialism: "Thus the formula of the fascist brew is in all countries the same: Hegel plus a dash of nineteenth-century materialism (especially Darwinism in the somewhat crude form given to it by Haeckel)."[3]

He argues that as a consequence of the popularity of Marxism in the first half of the 20th century, traditional fascism is not endorsing any specific religion. He wrote that while Marxism is seen as atheistic, fascism is not necessarily atheistic:

...fascism has not much use for an open appeal to the supernatural. Not that it is necessarily atheistic or lacking in mystical or religious elements. But the spread of agnosticism through Marxism led to a situation in which no political creed aiming at popularity among the working class could bind itself to any of the traditional religious forms.[3]

Later scholarship took several different approaches. Roger Griffin argues that

Fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>welding the 'people' into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values</span>. The core myth which inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.[4]

This concept of fascism as palingenesis is complementary with the idea of James Rhodes that fascism is a form of apocalyptic millenarianism — <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and with the work of Emilio Gentile, who argues that fascism is a form of "political religion" that involves the "sacralization of politics</span>."[5]

Roger Eatwell sees a complex relationship between fascism and religion, noting that "Religions…involve some form of belief in a supernatural being(s). However, this misses a point that all modern ideologies exhibit dimensions of religions." Eatwell questions "liberal historiography's demonization of fascism as an un-intellectual creed...." According to Eatwell:

"A more fruitful way of distinguishing between ideology and religion is to adapt Søren Kierkegaard's view that the essence of a religion is not the persuasion of the truth of the doctrine, but a leap of faith to accept a view which is inherently absurd.... Fascism’s essential syncretism meant that it was possible to find forms, which overtly married ideology and religion - for example, in the Iron Guard, or among a limited number of Italian and German clerics (though most failed to see the radicalism at the core of fascism). Moreover, there were aspects of fascism, which were absurd - especially the belief of some Nazis that there was an international Jewish conspiracy against Germany, which encouraged a belief in apocalyptic holy war against the Jew. However, most fascists were not driven by such affective sentiments. Indeed, there is nothing absurd about the core ideology of generic fascism namely the quest to forge a holistic nation and create a radical syncretic Third Way state." "Reflections on Fascism and Religion".








Christianity in the United States
See also: Creativity Movement, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Neo-Nazi groups of the United States, Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity, Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, and Dominion theology
The linking of Christianity with fascism or neo-fascism has generated debate among scholars and in the media; and some consider it offensive to Christians. Stanley Kurtz called comparisons of the Christian Right with fascism an ill-advised attack on conservative Christians:

The most disturbing part of the Harper’s cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside "the old polite rules of democracy."[6]

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Some Christian organizations believe that the Christian Right has become fascist. Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church of Seattle gave a sermon titled "George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism", in which he said, "I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Mr. Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied</span>."[7]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some leftists and libertarians use the term Christian fascism or Christofascism to describe what some see as an emerging proto-fascism and possible theocracy in the United States.[8] Advocates of this view include Carl Davidson, who has written an essay, "Globalization, Theocracy and the New Fascism: Taking the Right's Rise to Power Seriously</span>."[9]

More extreme than the Christian Right are two movements where there is more scholarly support for charges of neo-fascism: Christian Identity and Christian Reconstructionism. There are versions of the Christian Identity movement that adopt openly neo-Nazi ideologies. Some scholars consider Christian Reconstructionism to be a quasi-fascist movement because it is explicitly opposed to religious liberty and human rights. Berlet and Lyons have written that the movement is a "new form of clerical fascist politics."[10]<span style='font-size: 20pt'> Author Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and claims that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North is totalitarian: "There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom.</span>"[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism_and_religion </div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-14-2011, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Other than there being zero evidence of amy of the three, you may a good argument.

Now ... are you seriously denting that JFK abandoned people at the Bay of Pigs?

Whether or not JFK stole an election is highly arguable both ways. </div></div>

There was a large contingent of Cuban expatriates captured there, true, but they were not CIA agents or US natives. And they were not 'abandoned' per the parameters set down for the mission, which explicitly excluded overt US involvement for the purposes of plausible deniability. This was a setup, to try to force Kennedy to use US intervention in the open, which he'd already said he refused to do. So there was no betrayal by Kennedy, but a betrayal by the CIA case officers and senior planners, to mousetrap Kennedy into doing what he had already refused to do.

LWW
06-14-2011, 04:39 PM
Are you denying that 2 US citizens, also CIA employees, were taken prisoner by the Cubans and executed?

Are you also denying that a US paratrooper was killed in action?

Are you denying that another CIA agent was killed, and his bodt returned until the late 1970's?

Soflasnapper
06-14-2011, 06:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you denying that 2 US citizens, also CIA employees, were taken prisoner by the Cubans and executed?

Are you also denying that a US paratrooper was killed in action?

Are you denying that another CIA agent was killed, and his bodt returned until the late 1970's? </div></div>

Allowing that all of that is true, and of which, no, I am not aware of those people, my addition gets to 4 (four), far less than 100 (hundred), or HUNDREDS (which Mamet said and upon which my original denial was based).

What part of the term 'covert' do you not get? Of course we do not storm beaches with Marines to get covert operatives out, nor lay down suppressive fire.

The terms of this mission were known, and all Kennedy did was stick to them (when the setup was to force his hand to intervene overtly).

Remember: 'if captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge of your mission'?

Slight quibbles may strike you as showing I'm in error, but 4 does not equal HUNDREDS, even for you. Right?

LWW
06-14-2011, 07:39 PM
Actually, you said there were none.

Besides that, over a thousand Cuban exiles were abandoned. Many were citizens. All were in the US legally. Sixty three eventually held the military rank of captain or higher in the US military.

Your willingness to ignore history to save the reputation of a democrat icon, who oddly holds that status in spite of being to the right of any POTUS since him, doesn't erase that history.

Stretch
06-15-2011, 01:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you denying that 2 US citizens, also CIA employees, were taken prisoner by the Cubans and executed?

Are you also denying that a US paratrooper was killed in action?

Are you denying that another CIA agent was killed, and his bodt returned until the late 1970's? </div></div>

Allowing that all of that is true, and of which, no, I am not aware of those people, my addition gets to 4 (four), far less than 100 (hundred), or HUNDREDS (which Mamet said and upon which my original denial was based).

What part of the term 'covert' do you not get? Of course we do not storm beaches with Marines to get covert operatives out, nor lay down suppressive fire.

The terms of this mission were known, and all Kennedy did was stick to them (when the setup was to force his hand to intervene overtly).

Remember: 'if captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge of your mission'?

Slight quibbles may strike you as showing I'm in error, but 4 does not equal HUNDREDS, even for you. Right? </div></div>

I wouldn't be too sure about that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 01:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, you said there were none.

Besides that, over a thousand Cuban exiles were abandoned. Many were citizens. All were in the US legally. Sixty three eventually held the military rank of captain or higher in the US military.

Your willingness to ignore history to save the reputation of a democrat icon, who oddly holds that status in spite of being to the right of any POTUS since him, doesn't erase that history. </div></div>

LOL! They were abandoned, but then they were ransomed out, or else their number would not have included many who served in Vietnam with officers' commissions.

You use a couple of DEAD guys, who were killed in action, to pad the number of 'CIA agents' who were 'abandoned'? Without the guys already dead, who couldn't have been abandoned to be killed (as they were dead already), the number is TWO, and they were executed within a few days. Had they not been killed so quickly, and survived, they also would have been ransomed out (ransoming them out is the opposite of abandoning them).

And then there's this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On April 29, 2000 Washington Post article, "Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack", reported that the CIA had information indicating that the Soviet Union knew the invasion was going to take place, and did not inform Kennedy. Radio Moscow broadcast an English-language newscast on April 13, 1961 predicting the invasion "in a plot hatched by the CIA" using paid "criminals" within a week. The invasion took place four days later.[34]

David Ormsby-Gore, British Ambassador to the US, stated that British intelligence analysis, as made available to the CIA, indicated that the Cuban people were predominantly behind Castro, and that there was no likelihood of mass defections or insurrections.[16]:264</div></div>

Secrecy was of the ultimate importance, and the CIA knew they had lost that advantage, AND didn't tell Kennedy. Moreover, the real plan was a spontaneous uprising against Castro, and intel indicated that would not happen either.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> At 10:30am on 15 April at the United Nations, the Cuban Foreign Minister Raúl Roa attempted to accuse the US of aggressive air attacks against Cuba, and that afternoon formally tabled a motion to the Political (First) Committee of the UN General Assembly. In response, US ambassador to the UN Adlai Stevenson stated that US armed forces would not "under any conditions" intervene in Cuba, and that the US would do everything in its power to ensure that no US citizens would participate in actions against Cuba. He also stated that Cuban defectors had carried out the attacks that day, and he presented a UPI wire photo of Zuniga's B-26 in Cuban markings at Miami airport. Stevenson was later embarrassed to realize that the CIA had lied to him and to Secretary of State Dean Rusk.[8][13][22]

President Kennedy supported the statement made by Stevenson: "I have emphasized before that this was a struggle of Cuban patriots against a Cuban dictator. While we could not be expected to hide our sympathies, we made it repeatedly clear that the armed forces of this country would not intervene in any way."[40]</div></div>

LWW
06-15-2011, 02:57 PM
How utterly lame was that reply.

llotter
06-15-2011, 03:44 PM
Manet even admits that he called himself 'brain-dead' for a long time before deciding to wake up and even then it was past the age of 60, about the time he wrote that Village Voice article referenced above.

Living with the contradictions and endlessly repeating the same bumper-sticker mantras of the Left didn't present any real problem as long as Mamet was living the 'conservative life' and collecting the rewards of the capitalist system.

Talking liberal and living conservative doesn't seem to bother the brain-dead. Some are always conservative and some start of liberal in their youth but change as they mature, as Churchill said, '...if you are 40 and not a conservative, you have no head'. There are a few however, that never let logic or common sense intrude into their Utopian ideology. Michael Savage says they have a mental disorder and the evidence for that is mounting before us here.

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 04:23 PM
Winnie was only paraphrasing GB Shaw, I believe.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." -- Socrates

My theory is that even if you DO have the right principles, etc., it is STILL necessary to review and reconsider ones positions, as a kind of due diligence. Sometimes new facts occur, and sometimes what one thought were facts are not facts at all. Other times ones principles are reproven correct.

Doctrinaire adherence to ANYTHING is probably the sign of approaching cultdom, and all are well advised to not do that.

llotter
06-15-2011, 08:54 PM
I doubt that a commie like Shaw would be equating conservatism with maturity.

But more importantly, you are exactly summarized the ideas and words of the Left but in deeds, act the exact opposite. They freely admits that it doesn't know anything for certain but still does not hesitate to legislate what they believe is best for everyone. Even though they speak of being open to all points of view and that each of us has the right to live as they chose, they incessantly use the law to impose their latest and greatest solution to the problem caused by their precious great solution.

On the other hand, the Right has no problem identifying life and liberty and the Rule of Law as essential to the Good society. Protecting life and providing a secure environment is the first function of government in a free society and maximizing liberty means minimizing the force of government. Conservatives reject the Nanny State as antithetical to liberty.

LWW
06-16-2011, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Allowing that all of that is true, and of which, no, I am not aware of those people, my addition gets to 4 (four), far less than 100 (hundred), or HUNDREDS (which Mamet said and upon which my original denial was based).</div></div>

Actually the number was around 1,500 ... with several hundred executed.

sirjess291
06-16-2011, 03:50 AM
HELLOW GUD EVE .. online workouts (http://www.workout-x.com) - workouts (http://www.workout-x.com) - [url=http://www.workout-x.com]workout routines[/

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 09:54 AM
Mamet referred to hundreds of abandoned 'CIA agents,' not hundreds of Cuban expatriate nationals, so he got that among other things wrong, as I said.

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I doubt that a commie like Shaw would be equating conservatism with maturity.
</div></div>

Perhaps not, and I didn't find it upon a short search. I found citations that this quote has been attributed to him (and Disraeli), with the implication that these were false attributions.

However, it appears Winston Churchill also did not say this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Quotes Falsely Attributed | Print | E-mail

These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely attributed them to Churchill.

"Conservative by the time you're 35"

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"</div></div>

llotter
06-16-2011, 12:53 PM
It is true that a favorite tool of the left is to deconstruct history so they can confuse and insert their perversions...a despicable practice by despicable/stupid people.

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 02:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is true that a favorite tool of the left is to deconstruct history so they can confuse and insert their perversions...a despicable practice by despicable/stupid people. </div></div>

Deconstructing historical myths, perhaps.

Mentioning that Geo. Washington never cut down a cherry tree is to correct the mistaken view that a poem written about him years after his death was factually based.

Yes, it takes away a cherished myth, but really, should we wittingly tell the younger generation a LIE in order to help them understand the value of telling the truth?

LWW
06-16-2011, 04:33 PM
So how fine can you actually split a hair?

llotter
06-16-2011, 05:29 PM
Again you accurately parrot the naive leftist 'logic' revealing neither respect for tradition nor common sense.

Cultures are built on mythologies and heroes and roll models, including ours, the greatest one ever. Now, the little pointy heads come along and tear them down wholesale, unaware of the evil consequences they cause. And for why? To destroy what they don't understand and replace it with their Commie/Marxist/Socialist BS.

The decline and fall of Western Civilization can be laid at the feet of these nincompoops, supporting evil and destroying good.

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 09:44 PM
You must be thinking of someone else.

I'm actually a believer in truth, justice, and the American way. I believe in the rule of law. I think hard work ought to be rewarded. I follow the two great commandments, as Jesus stated them, as best I can. I decry the descent of this great nation into the gutter of crass materialism and sin.

I take seriously the Biblical notion that one cannot serve God and Mammon at the same time. And I echo Thomas Jefferson who said, 'when I consider that God is just, I tremble for my country.'

The false idols adopted by the country at large are materialism and gratification of the flesh. Ours is a nation sorely in need of repentance and a return to God's will.

llotter
06-17-2011, 06:15 AM
I am thinking about those on the Left that have perpetrated a frontal attack on Christianity for decades, cleansing it from any public recognition. The brain-dead liberals are anti-religion and the inevitable outcome of their philosophy is crass materialism and sin.

LWW
06-18-2011, 05:26 AM
The left's denial of a Creator creates a system where the mob can only be kept under control by instituting a series of Godkings.

Name for me the last democrook POTUS who was not deified by the far left?

Obama has been declared the messiah ... Clinton is still worshipped by his own cult ... so is Jimmuh Cahtuh ... JFK is forever with the pantheon of leftist Godkings, oddly in spite of being to the right of Reagan.

Soflasnapper
06-19-2011, 12:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again you accurately parrot the naive leftist 'logic' revealing neither respect for tradition nor common sense.

Cultures are built on mythologies and heroes and roll models, including ours, the greatest one ever. Now, the little pointy heads come along and tear them down wholesale, unaware of the evil consequences they cause. And for why? To destroy what they don't understand and replace it with their Commie/Marxist/Socialist BS.

The decline and fall of Western Civilization can be laid at the feet of these nincompoops, supporting evil and destroying good. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

~ John F. Kennedy</div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-19-2011, 01:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left's denial of a Creator creates a system where the mob can only be kept under control by instituting a series of Godkings.

Name for me the last democrook POTUS who was not deified by the far left?

Obama has been declared the messiah ... Clinton is still worshipped by his own cult ... so is Jimmuh Cahtuh ... JFK is forever with the pantheon of leftist Godkings, oddly in spite of being to the right of Reagan. </div></div>

Jesus, but you are blinded by your ideology.

Noam Chomsky, whom I will accept as actually being among the far left, has nothing good to say about JFK whatsoever, and denies that he was anything but a spear-carrier for his class, the uber-rich Eastern establishment boys.

Carter lost, among other reasons, by being savaged in the primaries by EMK, from his left, for being quite a conservative Democrat. (Besides being famously 'tight as a tick' with the public's money, including actually proposing a balanced budget one year, he was a creature of David Rockefeller, a noted bete noir of the left.)

Clinton was opposed for NAFTA and GATT and ending welfare as we know it, by the mainstream of his party, let alone the 'far left.'

Obama just got reamed at the Netroots confab, by people closer to the far left than any you could name.

You spew the craziest positions ever, without the slightest truth ever.

Try to inform yourself just a bit. Your assertions are howlingly unfounded.

Qtec
06-19-2011, 02:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am thinking about those on the Left that have perpetrated a frontal attack on Christianity for decades, cleansing it from any public recognition. </div></div>

What crap. Every GOP candidate is a Christian exremist RW,er.

The truth is the Christian extremist RW wants impose <u>IT'S</u> values on the rest of the country.



Q

llotter
06-19-2011, 04:08 AM
Being that Christianity is the well-spring of our concept of liberty and the motivation for our search for the truth and the source of the greatness of Western Civilization, we should looking to preserve it rather than tearing it apart.

It is not part of the Christian teaching to impose its beliefs on others though occasionally some do get overly enthusiastic. A fair minded appraisal of the alternatives should lead to a deeper appreciation for what we have all inherited from this great Western Culture.

Qtec
06-19-2011, 06:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Western Civilization </div></div>

I thought you guys hated the Euros!

Q

Qtec
06-19-2011, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not part of the Christian teaching to impose its beliefs on others though occasionally some do get overly enthusiastic. </div></div>

WOW!!! <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Understatement of the century.</span>

South America?????

Q

LWW
06-19-2011, 06:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL! They were abandoned, but then they were ransomed out, or else their number would not have included many who served in Vietnam with officers' commissions.</div></div>

So ... 1,500 or so abandoned, and the balance being ransomed out after hundreds were executed doesn't rise to the level of abandonment?

LWW
06-19-2011, 06:37 AM
Are you aware that you just backed up what I said?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Noam Chomsky, whom I will accept as actually being among the far left, has nothing good to say about JFK whatsoever, and denies that he was anything but a spear-carrier for his class, the uber-rich Eastern establishment boys.</div></div>

Quite the true statement. However, since then, the left has sent all evidence of JFK being a tax cutting pro defense anti communist to the right of Reagan POTUS down the memory hole and created the myth of JFK as a hard core leftist.

After all, he wore the blessed (D) on the ballot ... and the bots will believe whatever the party tells them the "TRUTH" is.

As far as Chomsky ... although I disagree with him on most everything, I put him up there with Kucinich and Nader as intellectually honest leftists.

llotter
06-19-2011, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Western Civilization </div></div>

I thought you guys hated the Euros!

Q </div></div>

What we hate is statism and have disdain for those gullible folks who are drawn under its siren's song of their own volition and help for those who fall under its boot. Now here is an ideology that does not hesitate to use force to bring others under its control.

How anyone can fall for this evil is beyond common sense or logic so it must be the devil's work that pulls people under its spell.

LWW
06-19-2011, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carter lost, among other reasons, by being savaged in the primaries by EMK, from his left, for being quite a conservative Democrat. (Besides being famously 'tight as a tick' with the public's money, including actually proposing a balanced budget one year, he was a creature of David Rockefeller, a noted bete noir of the left.)</div></div>

Yet decades later the moonbat crazy left has rewritten history to show Carter as a leftist who would have brought us unlimited power from the Sun if it weren't for the EEEVILLL Raygun.

The actual reality is that same far left opposed every inch of the Carter energy plan and Reagan pretty much followed it.

Not to be confused by reality, Carter's triad of:

- Coal.

- Drill baby drill in the lower 48.

- Drill baby drill in Alaska.

has also been flushed down the memory hole, and the "MINITRUTH" has replaced it with Jimmuh the Sunking and the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> Raygun ripping solar panels from the White House to enslave us to <span style='font-size: 14pt'>BIG OIL</span>.

LWW
06-19-2011, 06:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinton was opposed for NAFTA and GATT and ending welfare as we know it, by the mainstream of his party, let alone the 'far left.'</div></div>

Yet the far left has made yet another Godking of Billy Jeff.

They blame Bush for the pain and suffering of the poor for ending welfare as we knew it and credit Billy Jeff for it's deficit reduction ... even though they oppose it and he vetoed it twice.

They also credit Billy Jeff with the short term economic bubble created bt NAFTA and GATT while blaming Bush for the inevitable job losses these policies created.

But, again, all evidence of historical reality has been flushed from the collectivist memory of the dembot masses ... and they believe in a universe which never existed.

LWW
06-19-2011, 06:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama just got reamed at the Netroots confab, by people closer to the far left than any you could name.</div></div>

Yet they back him, will vote for him as a bloc, will campaign for him, and will e him to the bitter end.

The reality is that Obama ... just as Carter and JFK and LBJ and Clinton did ... can betray the far left with impunity and they will still lend their support.

LWW
06-19-2011, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You spew the craziest positions ever, without the slightest truth ever.

Try to inform yourself just a bit. Your assertions are howlingly unfounded. </div></div>

Yet you agree with them by disagreeing with them.

As I have said ... once one is infected with doublethink, any and all beliefs become both valid and invalid at the same time. The only factor which determines their validity, or lack thereof, is which set of beliefs the party demands the masses believe today.

Soflasnapper
06-19-2011, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama just got reamed at the Netroots confab, by people closer to the far left than any you could name.</div></div>

Yet they back him, will vote for him as a bloc, will campaign for him, and will e him to the bitter end.

The reality is that Obama ... just as Carter and JFK and LBJ and Clinton did ... can betray the far left with impunity and they will still lend their support. </div></div>

Perhaps they will vote for him, and perhaps not, as when Gore lost well over 100,000 votes in Florida alone to the Nader candidacy, far exceeding what would have made Gore a runaway victor there and in the country.

However, IF they do vote for these guys, it is out of a lesser of two evils analysis, and it's FAR FROM deifying these candidates.

You might as well say the right, no, THE FAR RIGHT, voted for Dole and McCain out of hero worship. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was strictly hold your nose and plunge, again, in a lesser of two evils analysis.

Clinton became a hero later, because of the nature of his enemies, and his great economy (which wasn't in evidence for his first term, prompting Dole to run against 'the Clinton recession.')

Carter became a hero only after leaving office, having disappointed everybody.

LBJ was HOUNDED OUT OF OFFICE, is how much impunity the left gave HIM.

You are simply inaccurate, but I repeat myself.

LWW
06-20-2011, 03:17 AM
Read the press clippings of the time.

The "FAR LEFT" does not mean democrat voters as a whole.

In fact, (D) voters as a whole seem to be made up of absolute kooks along with a minority of sensible but ill informed and generally non political voters.

When these ill informed and generally non political voters are awakened by reality ... the (D) candidate is doomed.

As a perfect example, I have a neighbor who has went through such an awakening with the GM bankruptcy and the damage done to his family and the local economy by the regime's choice to back the UAW at all costs and abandon the IUE.

For years I have known him to be:

- Anti abortion.

- Pro second amendment.

- Anti big gubmint.

- Pro tax cuts.

- Pro national defense.

and yet he would vote a straight (D) ticket because he was ill informed and generally non political, and the union told him to vote the straight (D) ticket because they represented his values.