Well Done CC.Com Druggies

[j_b]

And on a sad note look at how J_B and his ilk have resorted several times to personal attacks of various degrees......

 

That's rich coming from someone's whose central argument is that progressives are Pol Pots in waiting.

 

In turn, pointing out your record of warmongering and chilling for corporatocracy in these pages aren't personal attacks but setting the record straight as you position yourself to appear against Obama's war.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And on a sad note look at how J_B and his ilk have resorted several times to personal attacks of various degrees......

 

That's rich coming from someone's whose central argument is that progressives are Pol Pots in waiting.

 

In turn, pointing out your record of warmongering and chilling for corporatocracy in these pages aren't personal attacks but setting the record straight as you position yourself to appear against Obama's war.

 

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

[j_b]

Hmmm ...I remember the Angola civil war as occurring after independence. It was also under Jimmy Carter's wonderful Presidency....check out my tag line! Yes a crappy failure of a Democrat leading to an extended period of "Pax Republicana"

 

PP's memory is suddenly deficient so that he can't remember that war after Angola's independence was mostly fueled by Reagan and other conservatives in Washington and South Africa:

In the 1980s and early 1990s, Savimbi sought out vastly expanded relations with the U.S. He received considerable guidance from the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative research institute in Washington, D.C. that maintained strong relations with both the Reagan administration and the U.S. Congress. Michael Johns, the Heritage Foundation's leading expert on Africa and Third World Affairs issues, visited with Savimbi in his clandestine southern Angolan base camps, offering the UNITA leader both tactical military and political advice.

 

In perhaps Savimbi's greatest accomplishment in his relations with the U.S., U.S. conservatives convinced President Ronald Reagan to meet with Savimbi at the White House in 1986. While the meeting itself was confidential, Reagan emerged from it with support and enthusiasm for Savimbi's efforts, stating that he could envision a UNITA "victory that electrifies the world," suggesting that Reagan saw the outcome of the Angolan conflict as critical to his entire Reagan Doctrine foreign policy, consisting of support for anti-communist resistance movements in Central America, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere.

 

Under Savimbi's leadership, UNITA proved especially effective militarily before and after independence, becoming one of the world's most effective armed resistance movements of the late 20th century. Savimbi's very survival in Angola in and of itself was viewed as an incredible accomplishment, given the number of well-planned assassination attempts that he survived, aided by extensive Soviet, Cuban, and East German military troops, advisors, and support.

 

As Savimbi gained ground despite the forces aligned against him, American conservatives pointed to his success, and that of Afghan mujahideen, both of which, with U.S. support, were successfully opposing Soviet-sponsored governments, as evidence that the U.S. was beginning to gain an upper hand in the Cold War conflict and that the Reagan Doctrine was working. Critics, on the other hand, responded that the support given Savimbi and the Afghan mujahideen was inflaming regional conflicts at great expense to these nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNITA#Guerrilla_movement

[j_b]

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

that rich coming from Attila the regressive who denies the urgency of addressing environmental constraints and resource limits.

[prole]

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

Which policy prescriptions to which issues, specifically? Take your time.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

that rich coming from Attila the regressive who denies the urgency of addressing environmental constraints and resource limits.

 

I have never stated anything of the sort. You are conflating your retarded perception of supposedly prevaling opinions with everyone who disagrees with you on any subject.

 

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

And on a sad note look at how J_B and his ilk have resorted several times to personal attacks of various degrees......

 

That's rich coming from someone's whose central argument is that progressives are Pol Pots in waiting.

 

In turn, pointing out your record of warmongering and chilling for corporatocracy in these pages aren't personal attacks but setting the record straight as you position yourself to appear against Obama's war.

 

Just to clarify...I am pretty chill but I aint no shill.......

[j_b]

and yet, ANOTHER vacuous answer by PP. Until the next lie, I guess.

[Peter_Puget]

 

PP's memory is suddenly deficient so that he can't remember that war after Angola's independence was mostly fueled by Reagan and other conservatives in Washington and South Africa:

 

Reagan was elected about 5 years after Angolan independence. I think the Cubans starting sending troops to Angola during Ford's presidency.

 

By the way anyone remember the "Church Committee?"

[Peter_Puget]

and yet, ANOTHER vacuous answer by PP. Until the next lie, I guess.

Again with the insults? Why?

[j_b]

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

Which policy prescriptions to which issues, specifically? Take your time.

 

If you are expecting an answer beyond "lick sack", don't hold your breath.

[j_b]

what insult? You just told another lie relative to warfare in Angola, and as ususal you don't even bother to argue my documented rebuttal.

[prole]

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

Which policy prescriptions to which issues, specifically? Take your time.

 

If you are expecting an answer beyond "lick sack", don't hold your breath.

 

No, it's really just a joke these days to ask conservatives (or in this case faux-libertarians) to back up any of their criticisms with any substantial policy analysis or alternative. When American Business and the laissez-faire blank check they were handed has failed so spectacularly to "deliver the goods" to American citizens or to preserve any semblance of republican democracy, it's no surprise that their biggest proponents are capable of nothing more than slobbering, incoherent screeching, blind obfuscation, and "run out the clock" profiteering and politicking.

[Peter_Puget]

what insult? You just told another lie relative to warfare in Angola, and as ususal you don't even bother to argue my documented rebuttal.

 

Ok here is what J_B was replying to:

 

Reagan was elected about 5 years after Angolan independence. I think the Cubans starting sending troops to Angola during Ford's presidency.

 

1st Claim:

Reagan was elected about 5 years after Angolan independence.

 

Facts:

Portugal finally granted independence to Angola in 1975.

linky

 

so....

1975 plus 5 equals 1980

 

Now consider...

[Reagan won] both the nomination and election in 1980. linky

 

Conclusion => my first claim is true!

 

Second claim: Let's ignore the "I think" part and just for argument's sake consider that I was making an unqulified claim

 

I think the Cubans starting sending troops to Angola during Ford's presidency.

 

Facts:

 

Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.; July 14, 1913 – December 26, 2006) was the 38th President of the United States, serving from 1974 to 1977 linky

 

In November 1975, on the eve of Angola's independence, Cuba launched a large-scale military intervention... linky

 

Conclusion=> Second conclusion (not qualified) is true!

 

I would also point out that J_B's references to things happening under Reagan time are not really addressing any of the issues I have raised. My take has been that Obama is fucking things up quickly and seeding the seed of another Reagan Revolution.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

Which policy prescriptions to which issues, specifically? Take your time.

 

I'd like to here KKK answer to this question...for once.

[j_b]

No PP, obfuscation will lead you nowhere. I was answering your assertion that Angola's civil war took place under Carter whereas in fact the intensification of civil war and the height of our involvement occurred in the 80's under Reagan as discussed at the link I provided earlier or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War

[prole]

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

Which policy prescriptions to which issues, specifically? Take your time.

 

I'd like to here KKK answer to this question...for once.

 

"Aw, fuckit."

 

[Peter_Puget]

J_B relied:

No PP, obfuscation will lead you nowhere. I was answering your assertion that Angola's civil war took place under Carter whereas in fact the intensification of civil war and the height of our involvement occurred in the 80's under Reagan as discussed at the link I provided earlier or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War

 

Ok let’s examine the evidence. I made two posts referencing Angola. I am for ease of reference I am pasting them below.

 

 

Post #1

 

Hmmm ...I remember the Angola civil war as occurring after independence. It was also under Jimmy Carter's wonderful Presidency....check out my tag line! Yes a crappy failure of a Democrat leading to an extended period of "Pax Republicana"

 

Goldwater => Nixon/Ford

Carter=> Ronnie/Bush

Obama=>?

 

Post #2

 

Reagan was elected about 5 years after Angolan independence. I think the Cubans starting sending troops to Angola during Ford's presidency.

 

By the way anyone remember the "Church Committee?"

 

 

Now here is the quote J_B is trying to clarify:

 

what insult? You just told another lie relative to warfare in Angola, and as ususal you don't even bother to argue my documented rebuttal

 

Now even a cursory scan of J-B’s post will show that he must be referencing my second post. After all he wrote “you just told another lie relative to warfare in Angola.” Clearly I had not just told another lie.

 

And yes J-B is correct the Angolan Civil war went on over a few presidents tenure. But back to my point ….Reagan had to clean up a bigger mess because of a weak president named Carter. Only a couple years after Angola came….Afghanistan……seems the circle has again been completed and we are back to the future…..

 

[Peter_Puget]

you seemingly have had a history indicative of a reluctance to engage in the tasteless theatrics that are evoked by the "anonymous" nature of this forum, so to see the photo above came as a bit of a surprise, that's all.

 

as does your "defense" in the post above.

 

I can't remember not remembering that image. Tastless or not I bet that image did impact public opinion. When I first heard Clinton discussing "smart power" I instantly thought of the "Best & The Brightest" and the Vietnam War.

[Kimmo]

At this point in time "progressive" is a joke. You are all "regressives" - as your failed socio-political philosophy has nothing to do with the future, yet alone progress. The 20th century is over - get used to it.

 

Which policy prescriptions to which issues, specifically? Take your time.

 

If you are expecting an answer beyond "lick sack", don't hold your breath.

 

the same 3 or 2 or 6 peeps here have been playing this silly game (that i must take part in occasionally) for what, a decade now, and y'alls are still expecting answers to specific questions from klueless kluck kluck? wtf? y'alls are as kkk as he is.

[JosephH]

The Reagan administration was basically a nest of traitors and felons intent on developing an imperial executive to right what they saw as the structural weaknesses that led to Nixon's fall. After falling from grace they had their second chance to further fuck the nation when that team - now self-labeled as neocons - reconstituted as the recent Bush administration. Reagan was an incompetent leader by any standard and whose administration initiated the economic trends that led directly to current crisis. Both he and Bush Sr. used those false economics to distract from their entirely bankrupt military policies and adverturism.

[tvashtarkatena]

The Reagan Revolution, continued by the Bush II team, was a denial of real reasons for our defeat in Vietnam, and reaction to the lack of confidence in federal leadership that resulted from that debacle. Rather than do that sane thing: recognize our mistakes and attempt to correct them, Reagan implemented more of the very same ignorance and arrogance that caused that defeat, propelled by the myth that 'if we'd just gone bigger', we could have won that war. In hindsight, it's really hard to imagine how the U.S. could have gone any bigger than it did in Vietnam: 600,000 troops, 10 years, many times more bombs dropped than in WWII, expansions into Cambodia and Laos...

 

The results of such stupidity have been predictably disastrous; A string of defeats across the globe whenever the U.S. has acted unilaterally, culminating in the Soviet style bankrupting of the nation.

 

When the U.S. has acted in concert with it's allies with clear, predetermined political goals in mind, however; Kosovo, Iraq I, military and even some of those political goals are somehow magically achieved.

 

The difference in the two philosophies could not be more stark. The Neocon philosophy is drawn from the NAZI playbook: force produces fear; enemy cows and bows to our impressive might. There are no real tangible political goals to it; it simply seeks a state of permanent global domination by force. Hence all the modern day B movie rhetoric about killing all the bad guys blah blah.

 

The Clinton/Bush I multi-lateral philosophy recognized, more astutely, what historian have always known: that war is only one, drastic foreign policy tool used to achieve a finite set of predetermined political goals.

 

Historians will continue to argue about whether GWB or Reagan was the worst president in our history regarding the damage they've done to this country. From the destruction of the middle class, creation of a police state, evaporation of our respect and moral legitimacy worldwide, and a bankrupted economy, the list of their monumental achievements is long. Historians will probably all agree that they're in a class by themselves.

Edited December 24, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

dude, do you read ever read over what you write? like, you know, for logical consistency?

[prole]

I've always understood the Reagan Revolution to be the mobilization of the Christian Right as a voting bloc and coupling it with (classically) liberal economic policies. At the heart of that project (continuing today) were the goals of dismantling New Deal social programs and regulatory frameworks, a repudiation of Keynesian economics, and freeing American capital from any national responsibility while using American military might to police the world-system to benefit capitalism as a whole (while maintaining a privileged position for the US). Its funding secure from the corporatocracy, it focused on building a political base of support (from its victims, no less) by stirring up fear, racism, and reaction to the counter-culture.

 

What part of this bloated, diseased cancer in the American body politic hasn't failed?

[prole]

Oh, and Cliton and the New Democrats went right along with the whole neoliberal package and played the changed political landscape that Reagan created. Much of Cliton's appeal to party leadership (and still is) his ability to mobilize swing hicks in Southern states. Sorry, the Democrats are just as much on the hook for the grab bag of cat shit we're left by free-market fundamentalism, the Walmart Morlocks, and toxic legacy we're leaving for the rest of Earth's species. Merry X-mas.