billcoe Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I like reading conservative columnists (the pros, not the ass clowns) I agree and like to hear both sides as well (but don't bother to listen to Rush and a few other assclowns, including some liberal types). The link I posted above claims to be an "Activist" link which I'm sure JB would totally agree with had he bothered to read it instead of immediately arguing the next point that popped into his head. As he rarely posts no links to document what he says, and appears to not even read others links, having a discussion with him looks to be pointless, although he has some valuable insights, they often seem to come out as just "off topic and not germain to the point or discussion at hand spew". Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 Sometimes links aren't what they are cracked up to be. Take this example from the Wikipedia entry for Carlos Silva: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Silva He is known for his relatively quick pace, as he takes very short breaks between pitches, so as to return quickly to the dugout and its ample food supplies. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I like reading conservative columnists (the pros, not the ass clowns) I agree and like to hear both sides as well (but don't bother to listen to Rush and a few other assclowns, including some liberal types). The link I posted above claims to be an "Activist" link which I'm sure JB would totally agree with had he bothered to read it instead of immediately arguing the next point that popped into his head. As he rarely posts no links to document what he says, and appears to not even read others links, having a discussion with him looks to be pointless, although he has some valuable insights, they often seem to come out as just "off topic and not germain to the point or discussion at hand spew". I even listen to Rush and the televangelists, sometimes, if only to marvel at the techniques they employ (and the sad fact that, for millions of people, they seem to work). Rush, like Ann Coulter, is an amazing habitual liar. It's fascinating. I'm not referring to his opinions, most of which are just borrowed from other pundits (he presents little if any original information on his program), but to his tendency to change his story after he's been called on something he said after the fact. Coulter does the same thing. They seem to have absolutely no ability to admit to being wrong or fallible in any way, even when caught red-handed with a replayed tape of their program. (Take your shot here, kids!) Some of the televangelists are the same way; their entire body language practically screams "I'm here to fleece you", but others seem more earnest in their intent. In the end, however, all of them can be cooked down to a few tried and true propaganda tricks which exploits the basic unfilled needs of their self selected audience. Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 The NYT editorial board was quite critical of the invasion of the Iraq, as I recall. They were against going to war without the support of the international community but they strongly endorsed/strengthened the logic for going to war. They agreed with Bush that Iraq was a threat and should be forced into disarming (in spite of the objection of UN inspectors), while some of their reporters (judith Miller and a couple others) were critical in fabricating the narrative about the existence of WMDs. The NYT essentially ignored the massive opposition to war among americans before it started. Regarding Afghanistan, that military effort received broad support from all political viewpoints; both because the Taliban were so violently anti liberal, particularly in their treatment of women, and because that's where Al Qaeda and OBL were based immediately after 911. No. The supposedly liberal establshment supported attacking Afghanistan because it got caught up in the post 9-11 jingoism (which is anything but "liberal") but the progressive position was to advocate police actions to catch the culprits and policy reforms to avoid nasty blowback. Regarding NAFTA, the board urged environmental and job protection safeguards that were largely not put into place. Right, they paid lip service to the environment and labor yet they endorsed NAFTA as is and bashed anyone who opposed it. In summary, how do these positions amount to a liberal point of view? There are ideologs of every political stripe who lose the ability to rethink viewpoints because they refuse to taking in new information or filter their information to sources that agree a priori with their world view. I like reading conservative columnists (the pros, not the ass clowns) for example, to better understand the various perspectives that make up a politically mixed and often divided society. Plus, I don't go in much for the grand theories or grand conspiracies; two things ideologs the world over seem a bit too fond of. right, the 'non-ideological pragmatist' thingy that is so popular nowadays. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 So from a very recent NYT: linky This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people. Find a source for this quote. (the bold) Cheers, Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 The link I posted above claims to be an "Activist" link which I'm sure JB would totally agree with had he bothered to read it instead of immediately arguing the next point that popped into his head. You only posted that link after I mentionned who's D'Souza's source of funding. As he rarely posts no links to document what he says, and appears to not even read others links, having a discussion with him looks to be pointless, although he has some valuable insights, they often seem to come out as just "off topic and not germain to the point or discussion at hand spew". You posted writings by 2 rigthwing pundits in this thread (D'Souza and Kudlow) and you'd like people to think that is substantiation for your point of view? This is simply laughable. on Kudlow: "Kudlow opposes estate taxes, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains. He also advocates that employees be compelled to make greater contributions to their pension and medical costs, suggesting that these expenses are an undue burden on corporations and defends high executive compensation as a manifestation of market forces and opposes most forms of government regulation." Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) They were against going to war without the support of the international community but they strongly endorsed/strengthened the logic for going to war. They agreed with Bush that Iraq was a threat and should be forced into disarming (in spite of the objection of UN inspectors), while some of their reporters (judith Miller and a couple others) were critical in fabricating the narrative about the existence of WMDs. The NYT essentially ignored the massive opposition to war among americans before it started. No. I was very active in the anti war effort at the time and the NYT covered the protests very thoroughly (after all, some of the largest protests were taking place in NYC). They also disagreed with unilateral military action. Regarding Afghanistan, that military effort received broad support from all political viewpoints; both because the Taliban were so violently anti liberal, particularly in their treatment of women, and because that's where Al Qaeda and OBL were based immediately after 911. No. The supposedly liberal establshment supported attacking Afghanistan because it got caught up in the post 9-11 jingoism (which is anything but "liberal") but the progressive position was to advocate police actions to catch the culprits and policy reforms to avoid nasty blowback. the self styled 'progressives' in this country also voted for Nader in numbers, just one of many examples of the wisdom of their agenda and decision making. Fortunately, they are relatively few in number. Unfortunately, not few enough to fuck the rest of us in 2000. Most proggressives I've dealt with (quite a few, actually) are all complaints and no action, only a select few would ever dream of soiling their hands by running for a real political office or getting out there and doing some actual work that might change things, so they're pretty easy to ignore. The primary goal of the progressive movement seems to be to feel good about one's self. Right, they paid lip service to the environment and labor yet they endorsed NAFTA as is and bashed anyone who opposed it. One man's 'lip service' is another man's opposition in print. Edited January 9, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote
j_b Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Your post is a mess and you could at least try to quote me correctly. They were against going to war without the support of the international community but they strongly endorsed/strengthened the logic for going to war. They agreed with Bush that Iraq was a threat and should be forced into disarming (in spite of the objection of UN inspectors), while some of their reporters (judith Miller and a couple others) were critical in fabricating the narrative about the existence of WMDs. The NYT essentially ignored the massive opposition to war among americans before it started. No. I was very active in the anti war effort at the time and the NYT covered the protests very thoroughly (after all, some of the largest protests were taking place in NYC). They also disagreed with unilateral military action. I'll have to assume that you do not disagree that the NYT strengthened the case for war since you do not address the important points I made in that respect. I don't need to explain how arguing along with Bush that Iraq was a threat and should be forced to disarm in spite of the opinion of UN weapon inspectors does not constitute a liberal position. No. The supposedly liberal establshment supported attacking Afghanistan because it got caught up in the post 9-11 jingoism (which is anything but "liberal") but the progressive position was to advocate police actions to catch the culprits and policy reforms to avoid nasty blowback. the self styled 'progressives' in this country also voted for Nader in numbers, just one of many examples of the wisdom of their agenda and decision making. Fortunately, they are relatively few in number. Unfortunately, not few enough to fuck the rest of us in 2000. Most proggressives I've dealt with (quite a few, actually) are all complaints and no action, only a select few would ever dream of soiling their hands by running for a real political office or getting out there and doing some actual work that might change things, so they're pretty easy to ignore. The primary goal of the progressive movement seems to be to feel good about one's self. Are you saying that favoring a military solution in afghanistan is a liberal position? As to your opinion of progressives, they are mostly wrong. Nader has probably done more for the common man in america than most of the democratic establishment put together. Progressives are often organizers at the grassroot level. Their lack of involvment at the political level is more a reflexion on the seeming hopelessness of accomplishing much within the 2-party system. Right, they paid lip service to the environment and labor yet they endorsed NAFTA as is and bashed anyone who opposed it. One man's 'lip service' is another man's opposition in print. Your sleight of hand doesn't address whether supporting NAFTA is a liberal position. Quote
Hugh Conway Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 So from a very recent NYT: linky This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people. Find a source for this quote. (the bold) Cheers, your ass? what do I win - another link? Quote
pc313 Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 So much for the bull in the china shop,you break it you buy it thing! Looks like the Bush gangs is on the road out of town,Mission Accomplished! Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Well, I have a little anecdote about Ralph Nader. I happen to know a videographer who worked for him...and never got paid for it. Nader's a non-democratic demogogue by nature. His management style is completely authoritarian. He would make a disastrous president. His assertions regarding the safety of the Corvair were also disputed in later studies. Still, he deserves credit for his work as a consumer advocate. Hey, I like seatbelts. But whatever good he did as a consumer activists was more than erased by the final result of his running for President in 2000. He still refuses to take responsibility for the dire consequences of his actions. But hey, that's our Ralph. A true progressive, to the core. What a fucking prick. Quote
j_b Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Not only you haven't shown how making the case for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting NAFTA makes the NYT "liberal" but you came back to spread rumors and falsehoods about one of the few pols who hasn't sold out to corporatism. Nader may on occasion hold a demagogic position but he certainly is not a demagogue and he didn't become rich because of his politics. A true democrat (with a small d) would first point out the undemocratic nature of the electoral college and that DLCers let republicans steal the election Gore won, then discuss how conservative Democrats gave to Bush nearly everything he wanted instead of being a genuine opposition. A genuine opposition party could have prevented 90% of what Bush did if anything by promissing to hold them accountable in front of the law. Nader's candidacy did split the non-republican vote but it isn't the ultimate reason for Bush's power grab; the complicity of establishment democrats with neocons for the last 8 years is the proof that progressives are right not to trust politicians who are more concerned with the interest of economic elites than representing americans. DLCers own this mess nearly to the same extent that GOPers do, so don't blame the people like Nader who knew it all along. Quote
j_b Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Man, that crap is pretty cryptic and I certainly don't work for Hollywood. You could at least explain what you mean. Are you asking me if I am divergent or telling me that I am divergent? I am certainly divergent from dominant media culture but so do many people and a very large number of them agree with Nader on many things including the worhtlessness of both parties in congress that has an approval rating in the teens. Quote
pc313 Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 At least Nader unlike Ron Paul has accepted his loses and has moved on! Quote
STP Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Man, that crap is pretty cryptic and I certainly don't work for Hollywood. You could at least explain what you mean. Are you asking me if I am divergent or telling me that I am divergent? I am certainly divergent from dominant media culture but so do many people and a very large number of them agree with Nader on many things including the worhtlessness of both parties in congress that has an approval rating in the teens. I don't have any problems with your view of the world. Something about it though reminded me of a former practice applied to people who espoused ideas contrary to the establishment. As they said: "most frequently, ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure,"... Quote
j_b Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Good, and thanks for the reply. Psychiatry has always been used to repress challenges to power at all societal scales, from the family unit to the state. 'Divergence' is a little disturbing in this context because it reminds one of 'deviance' (probably meant that way), which has been used quite a bit to criminalize some form of dissidence. On the other hand, I have always thought that being paranoid was a necessary trait for critical thinking in the political arena. I have often semi-jokingly said that a little paranoia was necessary to grasp reality. The crux being not to let oneself stray too far away from rational thought. Quote
Fairweather Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 I have often semi-jokingly said that a little paranoia was necessary to grasp reality. The crux being not to let oneself stray too far away from rational thought. So when did it happen? Quote
STP Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I have often semi-jokingly said that a little paranoia was necessary to grasp reality. I believe that there are different ways of knowing. Take art, for instance (Van Gogh's "A Pair of Boots"). But what it says is not static in reference to narrative. [video:youtube]qe6gWsklnh0 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.