MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
How Neocons Destabilized Europe
By A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 09/07/2015 - 3:46pm |The neocon prescription of endless “regime change” is spreading chaos across the Middle East and now into Europe, yet the neocons still control the mainstream U.S. narrative and thus have diagnosed the problem as not enough “regime change
URL:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/07/how-neocons-destabilized-europe/
- Add new comment
- 21163 reads
Comments
A dominant theme in this report by Robert Parry is the b.s, that we are commonly fed by the media regarding our foreign policy actions and the motives and movers behind those policies.
I also recommend this by Danielle Ryan.
http://journalitico.com/2015/09/06/the-empire-files/
The interview with Cynk Uygur is particularly worth watching, IMO.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 09/07/2015 - 3:46pm
Thanks for the link. I didn't see the interview with Uygur before. I knew they fired him because he was different. I just followed him back to you tube after that.
Ed Shultz has a channel on you tube too now. I actually like him better now then when he was on MSNBC.
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 09/07/2015 - 10:34pm
Didn't read it, but a common theme is we just skip by what caused it, and instead act like for example this migration mess just occurred because maybe wealth jealousy, rather than us bombing and supporting rebels in Libya, Syria, Iraq. Of course fuckwads in France & Italy and partly UK backed the regime change-for-oil equation in Libya. We sponsored Gulf War II. And Syria, who knows what we expected as payoff for that piece of shit - praise from Israel? Arab Spring II? believing our own shit on Iran? I guess we assumed those refugees would stay down on the farm like the million on the Pakistan border or the millions in Jordan and Lebanon and those pushed from Iraq into Syria. Quite uppity of them to think they belonged in Europe - I think Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom and Langley & Reston, Virginia are Pennsylvania Avenue are more natural herding grounds - think how many sheep will fit on the White House lawn. Livestock coming home to roost, so to say. Maybe Camp David is free for a few years, since we seem to have abandoned peace accords.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 6:00am
There is also a serious drought going on in Syria. The aquifer that had sustained small family farming for thousands of years was drained by commercial farming run by the government. So there is another factor in this mess that is being over looked or ignored because of political spin.
by trkingmomoe on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 2:32pm
I heard a report today that claimed that the sudden burst of refugees into Europe was caused by Obama's treaty with Iran.
The refugees were piled up in their millions on the edges of Syria, waiting for the fighting to die down so they could return home. Obama's treaty ensures that Iran will get billions in sanctions relief and new investment. Iran is Assad's main backer and supporter, so his regime and war machine will now have a new lease on life, ensuring that the fighting will go on.
With no hope of returning home, the refugees have decided to move on.
by Lurker on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 5:37pm
So are you suggesting that maintaining sanctions on Iran would have ended the carnage in Syria? If the sanctions could do that, wouldn't they have done it already?
by Aaron Carine on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 6:10pm
I remind you that in the early days of the Syrian insurrection (remember the "Arab Spring"?), the general consensus was that Assad wouldn't last more than a few months. And that was before serious fighters like Al Qaida and ISIS entered the fray. What has kept Assad in power has been military and economic support from Iran, and diplomatic support from Russia. Despite that, he was slowly losing control of his country.
If the report is correct, the refugees, who have local knowledge and skin in the game (their lives are at stake), have decided that Obama's capitulation has changed the odds of the war petering out. They're giving up and sailing to Europe.
I wouldn't shed any tears for the Europeans. They had it coming - they also signed the
Instrument of SurrenderJoint Comprehensive Plan of Action.by Lurker on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 11:40am
There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe more US involvement in Syria would bring stability or peace to the region.
Exhibit One: Iraq 100,000+ casualties, $2-3 trillion cost, occupation 8+ years, result - unending terrorism and ethnic conflict.
by NCD on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 12:08pm
Who is making that claim? I'm not. But do you think more Iranian involvement in Syria would bring stability or peace to the region?
As for Exhibit One: the death toll in Syria, without US involvement, is much higher than the toll in Iraq, even though Iraq has a larger population. And the "unending terrorism and ethnic conflict" mostly came after Obama's withdrawal.
by Lurker on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 6:15pm
Iraq had 3 million more population than Syria pre-war, 22 vs 25 million.
22 vs 25 is not 'much'.
Your exhibit falls apart as it was Iraqi heavy and light weapons, and ammo, abandoned by the Bush trained Iraqi Army all over Iraq - a US trained army 'good to go' 'by Dec 2004' - GWB (see Prez debates 2004) that comprised most of the firepower, and ergo the deaths, in Syria.
Overseen and used by Saddam's officer corps and military the Bush/Cheney administration fired on Bremer's first day in Baghdad.
And I suppose Obamanot ideologues like you figure unending ethnic conflict anywhere could be easily prevented, by unending US occupation, casualties, and hundreds of billions in treasure.
Frankly, I don't think guys like you give a crap about Syrian, Iraqi or even US casualties, except to toss around to score partisan political points.
by NCD on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 8:59pm
I try to write in simple, clear English which you should be able to understand. Yet you constantly misinterpret and distort what I say. I think you are not looking for a conversation, just a chance to rant.
Iraq population: 37,000,000
Syria population: 17,000,000
Source: CIA
Death toll Syria: 220,000
Source: United Nations
Death toll Iraq: 100,000+
Source: Your "Exhibit One"
If "it was Iraqi heavy and light weapons, and ammo, abandoned by the Bush trained Iraqi Army all over Iraq - a US trained army 'good to go' 'by Dec 2004' - GWB (see Prez debates 2004) that comprised most of the firepower, and ergo the deaths, in Syria", then either the US forces should not have left Iraq when they did, or they were inadequate and incompetent in their training of the Iraq Army.
by Lurker on Thu, 09/10/2015 - 8:20am
Maybe you could link to where you are getting your numbers and "reports."
by moat on Thu, 09/10/2015 - 7:35pm
Populations Iraq and Syria:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html
Death toll Syria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Death toll Iraq:
Ask NCD: he/she came up with the number.
by Lurker on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 3:29am
"...or they were inadequate and incompetent in their training of the Iraq Army" - this. That asslicker Petraeus failed in every training program he did, but he always managed to fail upwards, except with the woman he slept with.
There never was a working "we'll stand down as they stand up" model - it was all fantasy designed to pretend we had an exit plan. The best plan is "if you have to go in, leave within a month whatever the status - it will only get worse".
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 6:27am
Do you know Assad has ruled Syria with backing from Iran for over 20 relatively calm years?
Why we don't help Assad against ISIS and the other Islamic fanatics is likely because Saudi Arabia supports those Sunni terror groups.
by NCD on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 7:28pm
You want to help Assad now? I thought you were objecting to his "new lease on life".
by Aaron Carine on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 7:51pm
He has a new lease? On what?
Maybe Kerry and Obama should shutup and let Putin send more Russians to Syria. The 50 guys the Pentagon vetted and trained with $500 million got captured within days by al Nusra Front.
Russian or Iranian control beats an ISIS Caliphate. But the Saudi's would object of course. Plus if Assad can take care of the Islamic Sunni terrorists, we, and the flood of migrants, could stay home.
by NCD on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 10:19pm
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 12:28am
Oh, damn, I confused what you said and what Lurker said! A thousand apologies! I'm getting senile.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 7:40am
US State Dept. spokesman John Kirby thinks Russia is building up ISIL by its military involvement in supporting Assad. NYT
WTF? Who's let the dogs out in the region?
Not a big Putin fan but if he puts boots on the ground I wouldn't complain about it, the US is trying to get Greece to disallow Russian overflights.
Saudi's are soulmates of ISIL, al Qaeda, al Nusra so Syria must be run by Sunnis or go down the bloody drain.
by NCD on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 9:52am
It has been a couple years now, [time seems to move at about mach 1+ these days] about the time of the Syrian poison gas affair which I suggested might be a false flag event, that I also suggested that the unstated plan of the U.S. and Israel might be to tweak the level and direction of support one way and then the other so as to keep the fight going and weaken all sides involved, both Assad’s and his opposition. Let them kill each other and save us some work. I still see that as a likely factor, “facts on the ground” would seem to be a fit, but I don’t actually think the whole answer is that simple. If it ever was that simple it has surely evolved into a much more complicated mix of problems. Oh well, gives a guy something to think about over morning coffee while we all wait to see who will be the next “war President”.
I am not an Assad fan, cannot think of a significant leader who I really am a fan of, but I have seen steady demonization of him as threat to the region and the entire world, but for those who think that is a stretch he is said to be a monster to his own people in order to justify humanitarian intervention. Often I wonder why the "deciders" bother to make excuses. All through that time I have also seen what seem to be credible claims that Assad would win a fair election among genuine Syrian citizens. Well, who knows? So many claims, so little trustworthy information. What's a mutha to do?
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 10:46am
The famous gas attack was likely done by rebels. Assad pretty handily disposed of chemical components (note not specifically "weapons") - any slowdowns being more the fault of US ships not being ready to transport them.
While certainly not the nicest guy, the media campaign to demonize his every move defies belief, as does the idea that we'll supply movements to overthrow him but he should just stand there docilely and wait to be overthrown - heads I win, tails you lose. He may have been born at night, but not last night.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 7:07am
PP, there are no verified reports that anyone other than Assad's forces had sarin gas weapons only rumors and unsupported speculation, this is not something you cook up in a bathtub like meth.
I thought just as many other people did that it was illogical for Assad to use these weapons but he is an old fashioned despot leading a Stalinist party and facing destruction those kind of people will do very strange and ugly things.
This is not an excuse for our involvement in the conflict or our agenda but it is the Syrian people who are fighting to overthrow a bloody despot and his minority Alawite Ruling Class.
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 9:31am
Nowhere near Stalinist. It's hard to say how much the US & other powers are behind the 2011 uprisings and civil war, but wouldn't be the first time we tried a coup that didn't quite work (Venezuela, anyone?)
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 10:46am
There could have been outside influences affecting the uprising but it was initially a grass roots movement unlike our usual methods of co-opting a powerful existing opposition, usually military, such as we did in the Iran coup, the Chilean coup and the failed Venezuelan coup which we continue to pursue with millions of dollars funneled to the opposition through NGOs and directly to some in the military. No such connection appears to exists in Syria even if we do support and arm ex military personnel in the FSA.
I doubt the US will get what it wants in Syria even when Assad is gone, any puppet regime that is installed will soon fall because of infighting and the Islamic State will be the deciding factor in whether Syria even continues to exist as a petty Nation State or becomes a province of the Caliphate.
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 12:16pm
Apologies accepted.
by Lurker on Wed, 09/09/2015 - 11:25am
Lurker, this "report" strains credibility, to put it charitably.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 09/10/2015 - 12:08pm
I haven't heard it confirmed by any other source. But it's the best explanation I've heard for a question that's been puzzling me: why have the refugees flooded Europe now, and not gradually over the years. The dam has burst suddenly. There must be a reason for that.
I'd been guessing in the dark, without any evidence, about that reason. Some of my guesses:
It's Erdogan. The refugees are streaming out of Turkey, not out of their other massing points (Jordan, Lebanon, Iran). Erdogan wants to distract Europe from the war with the Kurds that he has just restarted. It's worked, too: the European media have been talking about nothing else since it began. Erdogan also has it in for the Europeans, because they wouldn't let him join the EU.
It's Saudi Arabia. By massively increasing the number of Muslims in Europe, they are hastening their long-term plans to turn Europe into a Salafi region. It also diverts the refugees from noticing all the empty land in nearby, Arabic-speaking, Sunni Saudi Arabia.
It's Russia. Destabilizing the West, while increasing their influence in the Middle East.
As I say, these are all guesses. Do you have any answers?
by Lurker on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 3:19am
I don't know what "report" you are referring to but the logic presented in your interpretation comes down to whether Iran responds to the lifting of sanctions with a double down support of Syria or decides it is in their best interest to let the crap fest happening there to play out without them.
The idea that refugees from the Syrian war were closely following the process of the Iranian negotiations is very interesting. Where should one go to research the matter?
by moat on Thu, 09/10/2015 - 8:29pm
The report was on the radio. See my answer to Wolraich, above.
How will Iran respond to the lifting of sanctions? Time will tell.
by Lurker on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 3:22am
It was a good expose, but after viewing the video, IMO it is a hopeless endeavor to overturn those who control the media.
They will use the media they control, to claim,what they do, is for the greater good of society
They will silence anyone they decide, is disruptive and disagreeable to their positions and agenda.
Resistance is futile, because they will assure resistance will be crushed and silenced.
by Resistance on Mon, 09/07/2015 - 4:55pm
The part about the military/industrial complex is straight forward and the way it has its own inertia is a point well taken.
But taken from a "sphere of influence" point of view, the neocon agenda has not necessarily advanced the cause of their investors. For all the heft shown on the maps, it is not adding up to control of the ground.
What's an imperialist to do? Oh wait; I don't want to help them with that. But that gives me another thought: What helps them with that?
by moat on Mon, 09/07/2015 - 7:50pm
They are not done yet
The mass migration we are now witnessing is a part of the plan.
If the conditions worsen, the people will be clamoring for a governmental agency, with the ability to step in and take control of the
groundEarth,Those who saw the conspiracy of a One World Government will have been proven to be correct, but shortly it will be too late to resist.
In the end, It all adds up ... every living soul will be forced to submit to it's decrees or face death
or incarcerationat the strong arms/ hands of the military/ industrial complex, under the direction of the United Nations (nice sounding name, but its design is insidious)by Resistance on Mon, 09/07/2015 - 9:22pm
If I understand your point then I agree completely. A big problem is that nobody has constructive control on the ground in so many of the unfortunate places where neocon agenda has been pushed. Chaos reigns where our country has followed the lead of those who use war as another form of politics and politics as another way to increase their market share. Even if one was to believe as they claim they do, even if one were to think that the USA 'should' run the world and continue to believe that is a possibility, the neocons have shown themselves to be not just totally useless but extremely counterproductive at showing the way to do so and yet remain influential which means powerful.
I have been only slightly aware of Abby Martin from a few Youtube videos of her when she was on "RT". I thought that in the couple of video interviews of her that she came off quite well, at least to my way of thinking.
What helps the imperialists in their quest for greater empire? One thing that helps is continuing to vote them into office so they can keep on keepin.' on. Of course we have no other choice except possibly Bernie. So, speaking of Bernie, here is an article about him which comes closest to my views of him and his politics than most any other that I have read.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/04/bernie-sanders-vision-as-myopic-a...
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 09/07/2015 - 10:43pm
It is a work in progress
The people would be mistaken or misguided, to underestimate their power and influence.
Do people really believe they are privy to the plans for conquest?
Were the people invited into the Neocons tent. to overhear the the war counsel?.
What I got from the video, is that the Empires, use chaos and fear for their benefit.
What do they care that people suffer homelessness sickness or hunger. They want the people to rebel.
In their arrogance, they believe they will stamp down the rebellion or starve the rebels.
Chaos is what they want and they will create it. Control comes later
Blaming the Neocons wont change the plan. Blame anybody you want.
Bernie is just another imagined savior, because of the peoples despair. They sense the hopelessness. and IMHO,voting for Bernie is nothing but a grasp at an illusion.
When the illusion of self- determination is dispelled, then what? More chaos?
They'll solidify their control the more chaotic the Nations become.
Can Civilization Survive "Really Existing Capitalism"? An ...
by Resistance on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 1:40am
Another day, another link. Counterpunch has been publishing a steady menu of differing opinions on the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. In order to make politics even worth thinking about, worth going to the ballot box after giving some effort to understand problems and how to affect their solutions, a person must have some hope that one choice is really better than another. [The widespread belief that there is no real difference worth investing energy in is certainly one reason for the political ignorance and low voter turnout that is common in our elections] This long article gives a very good, IMO, view of the various arguments for and against Sanders and in doing so reveals the author's belief that even though a vote is a weak and often ineffectual tool, it is still one which should be used with long term tactical thought guiding it. The article mostly ignores any arguments against Sanders that would come from the 'Right' but concentrates on shooting down those that come from the 'Left', especially the purist left who would let the pure be the enemy of the good. Anyway, rather than a book review type comment I should probably just have said read this, it is well written and makes a ton of sense. Again, just IMO.
The Sanders Paradox: a Brief for Bernie
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/08/the-sanders-paradox-a-brief-for-b...
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 10:44am
Thanks for the link.
by trkingmomoe on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 4:00pm
Biden's eclipsing of Sanders, without even being in the race, in a recent poll shows just how narrow a demographic Bernie is attracting. Those who are trying to boost the Bern with attacks on his informed detractors do little to broaden that narrow demographic. They don't have a Nader to project their bile onto so radical young Black women and anyone who question his weak cred are singled out for the Treatment.
This is not a very bright tactic thinking many people will fall for the Hopey-Changey nonsense again after Obama. or that the slimy, predictable Democrat smear of 'Purists' will improve the the chances of their White Moses.
Sanders' hollow talking points, mostly clipped from the Occupy Movement, don't offer them much to work with but must they so easily degenerate to this low level of slimy personal attacks?
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 09/10/2015 - 2:03pm
Not much of what you say in your entire comment makes much sense as a response to the link. Maybe you can help me better understand where you stand. Who are the informed Sanders detractors you refer to? The author of this piece is to the left of Sanders and is appealing mainly to others who are left of Sanders to recognize that a move in the left direction by electing Sanders is better for the country than settling for more of the same even if it is not a move all the way to where they think things should be.
Then you rap it all up. You think that it is predictable that Democrats will make "slimy smears" of "purists. Kaufman is appealing to the purists who are to the left of Sanders just as he is himself and is doing so with reasonable arguments, as I see it. Think what you will, but would you care to point out any specific instance which you think demonstrates the author being "slimy" in his way of addressing the issues or even where he is simply mistaken? I can see that Sanders has lost your vote. Do you have a choice for the Presidency that you can make a positive case for? Who do you like?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 09/10/2015 - 5:36pm
Kaufman's rambling rant is a typical Liberal reactionary Centrist response to detailed critical analysis of the Centrist Democrat Party and its minions such as Sanders. Anyone to the left of that Veal Pen is the Other branded Purists whether they have supported or even voted for their Centrist candidates while supporting many Liberal causes. Any demand for answers about why these Centrist candidates are lacking in moral and ethical substance is heresy and the Barn Burners such as Kaufman are sent in to flame the unbelievers.
It's strange that people on the Radical Left are denigrated for having standards that require us to view Sanders as immoral because he publicly supports Drone Murder while Kaufman writes 'who cares' and then goes on to praise the Bolsheviks because they voted in elections!
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 11:09am
I agree that Sanders, by my standards and beliefs anyway, is weak on foreign policy. Since I think our foreign policy is the most likely thing to cataclysmically blow up our entire way of life like it has the lives of so many, I do not think that that criticism of him is a small thing. Did you notice that Kaufman made that same criticism? He certainly didn't say, "Who cares". I think Sanders, if he were to be able to carry any sway as President, would be an improvement in that area over Hillary by a good margin and obviously far better than any Republican, all of whom promise to blow up something their first day in office. Hillary as a moderate suggests that she would wait a week or two in order to give any country that opposed us a fair chance to fold or suffer the consequences.
You characterize Sanders as a centrist. It would take some pretty creative twisting to support that allegation, IMO. In politics we must define the center as somewhere between the two poles of the two major parties. That is a pretty small space nowadays and it is located far to the right of any legitimate "center" as it has existed through much of our country's history. Sanders seems to be well left of that space.
It is a near certainty that our next President will come from the current crop of announced candidates. I would still like to know if there is anyone running who meets your qualifications closely enough that you will vote for them. Who would you like to see become the new CIC, even if they are not currently running?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 12:32pm
I take it all back about Hillary. Now I see she is a real peace advocate. Cool.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 1:03pm
People who lack the ability to make substantial rational arguments often sink to slimy tactics. Posting pictures like this really only works with the moronic dregs in the republican party. I don't think there's anyone stupid enough here to find idiotic posts like this appealling. It's totally lacking in substance and it will just piss off Hilary supporters. The most likely outcome you'll get from posting shit like this here is that you will lose the respect of your peers.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 2:32pm
Hillary supporters will have plenty of opportunities to be pissed off whether with reason or not. I wasn't making an attempt at a substantive rational argument when posting that picture and you may think that I am not capable of doing so anyway. I can live with that. I think she has no standing to be flashing peace signs. I think it is funny if you like black humor. She was posing for the damned picture, you don't have to like it that I do and if you think it is a slimy tactic to post a picture that she posed for then I am sure we will get a chance to compare that with tactics she uses in the near future.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 4:18pm
There's plenty of evidence that misogyny plays a significant role among Sanders supporters. Protest all you want, as you have in the past, but I think your posts are pretty clear evidence misogyny plays a role in your choice as well. I'm not surprised that Sanders supporters won't follow their candidate's lead to fight a fair campaign. The Hillary haters can't help themselves.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 4:53pm
Your charge of misogyny is as wrong as the day is long. Yes, I have made it clear many times, and will likely do so many more, that I do not like Hillary’s politics. But hey, you can just call me Charlie for posting a cartoonish picture if you like. But, misogynist? OK, I’m gonna stay polite, I'm not going to say, fuck you, but consider this; I also do not like Trumps politics so I guess that if you were inclined to disagree with how I expressed that you would consider calling me a misandrist to be a substantial rational argument
. And, since I have disagreed with some of Obama’s policies, sometimes very strongly, you would call me a racist. And, I positively cannot stand Bibi Netanyahu, I despise that prick’s politics, so go ahead and call me anti-semitic if that is that best you can do at constructing what you consider to be a rational, substantive argument.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 5:28pm
I’m gonna stay polite, I'm not going to say, fuck you
Yeah, ha ha. You think I don't know that's just a passive aggressive way to say Fuck You? I'm not polite but I don't waste time with meaningless insults like fuck you. I make points, if they're insulting it's just a coincidence.
As you posted, you weren't " making an attempt at a substantive rational argument when posting that picture." By your own admission it wasn't about politics, as was obvious. If you start posting pictures mocking Trump's hair I'd call you on your bullshit. If you posted racist pics of Obama I'd call you on it too. If that happened I'd think you have issues that go beyond mere politics. But you know, I don't recall you posting nasty pics of Trump, or Obama, or Netanyahu. Just nasty pics of Hillary. See where I draw my conclusions from?
By now you should know I'm straight to the point and blunt. If you're too thin skinned to deal with it ignoring my comments is always an option. I'm pretty thick skinned myself so if you've got something to say say it.
The way I see it this is a win win for me. You'll either watch out more carefully for misogyny when you post or you'll get pissed and double down until the misogyny is obvious to everyone.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 6:42pm
I have mixed feelings about dignifying your BS with a reply but I did compose one so what the hell, I might as well post it.
Everyone that has two or more brain cells connected by a working synapse knows that Hillary is a neocon-like aggressive hawk on foreign policy and you certainly know by now that I find that stance to be offensive for many reasons, only one of which is because it is so counter-productive. So, I wonder why you are so easily offended, or maybe you just happily wait for a chance, that you resort to a knee-jerk impulse and impugn my character with a maliciously defamatory charge just because I see humor in a silly picture of her posing throwing of a peace sign? Do you find that her policies are all above reproach or that her stature as a lifelong politician somehow puts her in a category where deserved humorous ridicule is somehow beyond the pale? Do you have "other" issues?
You don’t seem to realize it but just because because you said I am a misogynist doesn’t make it so and the assertion is not strengthened anywhere but in your own mind just because you wear as a self described badge of honor your thick skin and propensity to be blunt.
Being straight to the point and blunt is poor cover for being completely wrong about something you could not possibly know the truth of one way or another. I can see, though, how being habitually that way would cause a person to develop a thick skin to protect from the normal reaction most people have to being insulted.
You suggest that I am too thin skinned. I think you are wrong about that too but I guess it's all relative and I find it kind of funny that you say so, but I suggest that if I were to make a comment similar to yours about your character [assuming it was as wrong as yours about me or probably even if not so] that you would respond too with a correction. But I don’t care if you don’t, you are completely free to ignore my comments too. And, any pictures I post as well.
Oh yeah, was that picture maybe taken just before she ducked and ran to escape the sniper fire? I don’t see Bryan Williams anywhere in the crowd.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 9:46pm
You don’t seem to realize it but just because because you said I am a misogynist doesn’t make it so
rotflmao. You don't seem to realize that your claim that your post was not misogynistic doesn't make it so. Everything everybody posts here is an opinion.
What evidence do you have that the people in the pic were flashing a peace sign and not a victory sign? That's one of the problems with engaging in slimy tactics with out of context pics while making up bullshit to push what ever lie fits your partisan leaning. The pic wasn't originally misogynistic in intent but likely from some right wing site designed to appeal to racists since it was angled or cropped to show Hillary mainly with unattractive swarthy Muslim appearing men. Happy to be spreading that meme? To be clear, though it was set up to appeal to racists I don't think that was your motivation.
Anyone can take a ten minute video of anyone and get a few dozen stills with the person looking goofy or ugly. That's why professional photographers have auto functions on a camera to take several pics every second. They can always get a few extremely unattractive pics that way. You can often get a good idea of the degree of a writers bias just by looking at the pic at the top of the article. Do you search for ugly pics of Obama, Trump, or Netayahu or just Hillary?
The fact that you chose to post this nasty little picture, that you think it's funny, and that you don't post nasty pics of the men who have politics you hate is enough evidence for me to see misogyny as a part of your motivation.
And yes, you are absolutely right. I'm habitually like this. I've worked a lot of construction jobs. I never laugh at the homophobic and sexist jokes that are common on the work site. I'll more often than not confront those making homophobic, sexist, or racist remarks. I've never been the type to go along to get along. My philosophy aligns more with the idea that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to remain silent. I'm not at all ashamed by that fact.
You really misunderstand me if you think I'd act like you have. If someone made a rational case against me I'd consider the evidence seriously. I wouldn't say fuck you to them while childishly pretending I was Oh so polite to ever respond that way. I wish more people were willing to point out my blind spots, that's how we grow. But most people are so afraid of conflict they're unwilling to be honest.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 12:39am
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 2:40am
Churchill's day? Are you saying Nixon's signature hand wave was a secret message to the hippies that he was really a peacenik? I'd guess that's likely the reason it's less often seen today.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 3:06am
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 7:18am
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/13/2015 - 1:40am
Me too.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/13/2015 - 2:04am
I don't see anything 'weak' in Sanders stand on FP, from his support for interventions and the US MIC, that's why he avoids discussing it and leaves it completely out of his platform otherwise his followers would have to defend his hawkish immoral positions especially on Palestine. I'm sure he knows that none of his egalitarian pipe dreams are possible without dismantling the MIC.
Sanders has and continues to use leftist sounding Liberal reformist rhetoric although he doesn't mention Socialism much anymore and nothing in his government history shows how he would perform his promised miracles. Breaking up the TBTF banks sounds wonderful but how will he do it, with an axe? He certainly will get little help from the Wall Street captive Democrat Party. The best he offers on Socialism is the failed Social Democrat model in Europe which is a reformist Capitalist model. Just talking about these topics puts him on the left of the dominate Centrist ruling elite so he appears to some people as a real alternative which is an illusion.
A few years ago i joined a growing and soon to be majority demographic that understands that voting is not Democracy and if it could change the status quo it would be made illegal. I cherish my right to vote and will not waste my vote in a corrupt system on parasite politicians who serve no one but the Ruling Class and no they will never change or learn to respect me or any other citizen not in that dominate class.
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 1:51pm
Peter, I worded my comment poorly when I said Sanders is weak on foreign polcy. What I meant is that, by my lights, he is not good on foreign policy because I am for a much less bullying, interventionist, rule-the-world attitude towards the rest of the planet than has been our case for many years now and Sanders, like you say, does not separate himself from advocates of that nearly as much as I would like. I certainly did not intend to cheer for a more "robust", "muscular", " militaristic" stance as the world's essential nation that proclaims to be a [ name-your-form-of-threat] dominator which I believe Hillary buys into. Maybe she first acted that part as a political strategy but she seems to have internalized that mentality at some point in her life. Maybe way back when she was a Goldwater Girl, I don't know, but I don't like it.
I like your last paragraph so maybe sometime before election day you will positively endorse someone so that I have a chance to consider them because I do not like to waste my vote either. I probably won't ask again unless you continue to bad-mouth everyone else's choice without naming an alternative. I respect the privacy of the vote but this is, after all, a political discussion about who would be best to lead the country. You don't like my current choice among the possibilities I see so maybe I would like yours better and so would join that growing demographic you say will soon dominate but about which yiu don't say how and in what direction they will take us.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 3:59pm
I also accused Sanders of being hawkish on Palestine, but I was shown(to my considerable embarrassment) that I got it wrong. He was mildly critical of last year's slaughter in Gaza, and he supports a two state solution. So while you may feel he should be more anti-Israel, he probably shouldn't be called hawkish about Israel. I think he had the better of the argument with the audience members at that town meeting or whatever it was.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 7:08pm
Bernie has been very careful about his public image concerning Israel but as far as i can tell he has always been a Zionist. I doubt you will find any instance when he has voted against Israeli interests. His abstinence on the Gaza massacre vote was a weak politically expedient cop-out.
The 'What's left of Palestine' two state solution is a bad joke and another cop-out. Many Jews speak critically about Israel without being anti-Israel, Bernie could but is not inclined to do so or to show some humanitarian support for the Palestinians.
His recent statements about his support for the WOT and specifically Drone Murder is a fresher example of his tendency to go to the Dark Side.
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 9:43pm
So who is the US pro-Hamas candidate you wackjobs support?
I would note the Gaza strip is one Muslim controlled Middle East geographical area where, thanks to Israel, Sunni Muslim terrorists have not been murdering multitudes of other Muslims, Christians, Yadzi's, Kurds or any American/European they can get their hands on, or performing religious rape and beheading people.....why?
They are too busy digging tunnels, importing missiles to fire from schools and scheming new ways to kill Jews.
Or anyone within range in Israel (Israel does have 1.7 million non-Jew citizens).
Or as a stress reliever, entertaining themselves executing other Gazans and dragging the body around the Gaza streets with motorcycles.
by NCD on Fri, 09/11/2015 - 10:41pm
He didn't support "drone murder". He said he would continue some use of drones, but would try to minimize civilian casualties. Using drones to kill combatants is no more immoral than using any other weapon to kill them. It doesn't violate the laws of war(that isn't to say that we haven't committed war crimes with the drones).
Sanders refusal to vote for the resolution endorsing the slaughter in Gaza could be seen as evidence that he isn't that hawkish(on Israel). I don't see that it was politically expedient; the politically expedient thing to do is to support Israel in everything
If the two state solution is a cop out, what solution do you support? I hope it isn't the destruction of Israel, Or maybe a binational state, which is a pipe dream.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 5:09am
The use of any killer drones is Drone Murder, there is no declared war and none of these people have attacked the US although their children might. Trying to justify murder of those we disagree with or fear puts you in the company of Cheney, Bush and Obama and on the Dark Side .a morally repugnant position. I understand that a majority of Liberals use similar excuses to justify their killer tendencies and Bernie's desire to kill less people or kill them more accurately is still immoral and sick.
The European settler state of Israel has failed, there may have been a time when they could have coexisted with Palestine but that was never their goal and they may soon pay for their arrogance and vicious nature.
With global warming parts of the continent of Antarctica may soon be habitable and it might make a safe and secure home for the Jewish State of Israel, they won't have water problems or pesky Palestinians to wall out. With rich soils and penguin poop i'm sure they would be exporting produce in no time and their drone business and Intel fabs could easily be transferred to their new home.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 1:46pm
You do remember that these people ATTACKED us, right? You're allowed to oppose the war(I also think the war should end), but don't pretend that Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers are poor innocent bystanders being persecuted by the Great Satan. The laws of war allow you to kill enemy soldiers before they kill any of yours.
Speaking of immoral, your idea that Israelis should all go to Antarctica is highly immoral(you're talking about an ethnic cleansing more ruthless than the one that happened to Palestinians), so get off your high horse, chum.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 2:36pm
I was under the impression that these people that ATTACKED us died in the attack and i'm certain that no Taliban had attacked us before we invaded their country. The people that assisted those who died attacking us are liable for their actions but that is a police matter and Hellfire Missiles are not legal judicial instruments.
I thought my Israel in Antarctica idea would offer young Israelis some hope of adventure, a new frontier and a challenge that doesn't require them to murder children, bulldoze homes and harass grandmothers ar checkpoints.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 6:36pm
Relocation isn't a new idea. It's been suggested before. But it would never work because too many Jews believe god gave them that little slice of desert several thousand years ago.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 8:28pm
Oh, come on. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, not just the nineteen hijackers. The Taliban were sheltering and subsidizing Al Qaeda, so they were responsible. Police couldn't do anything about it, anymore than police could have done something about the German invasion of Poland.
As for for the idea of removing Jews from Israel, you haven't said anything new, so I can stand on what I said in reply.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/12/2015 - 9:33pm
I'll amend what I said. The Taliban weren't directly responsible, but to get at Al Qaeda, we had to go into Afghanistan. Hence the justification for fighting the Taliban, who were between us and Al Qaeda. In hindsight, the Afghan war doesn't seem to have been justified, but it would have been if it had been short.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/13/2015 - 7:13am