Friday, March 28, 2008

Replies to American Power blog (AmericanNeoCon)

American Power

Since Nero's limiting me to one reply/his post on his blog, I'm setting up this topic in an effort to keep the dialog flowing... He's welcome to post here, or I'll drop reply links over there... I don't take well to those who edit my posts for content, but I confess to enjoying the twisted NeoCon bullshit that comes out of his mind, sometimes...

Either this'll work, or it won't... But I figured I'd give it a try...

25 comments:

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: Surviving Wright: Obama Weathers Race and Religion Controversy

Reply to: HaloScan.com - Comments: "He's getting a pass from his Democratic supporters, that's for sure.

Thanks Shoprat.
Americaneocon | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 7:45 pm | #"

At this stage, I'm not sure how many non-Democratic supporters Obama has... They'll come later, when it's a two person race for the office.

repsac3 said...

Reply to: HaloScan.com - Comments: "repsac...why not quit hijacking 'The Professors' blog and make your own better...you are becoming a bore., and nothing worse than a left wing bore.
Pat Houseworth | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 5:01 pm

Yeah, I just might do that... It's not like blogs are about the exchange of ideas, or anything... Much better when they only contain those thoughts with which everyone agrees...

I like the debate, but why upset the apple cart, right? The world is a much more cozy place when there's no one around to challenge your ideas. A few "You're so right", "Great post, Don!!" comments is all a blog really needs.

When the professor wishes me to go, he'll tell me... (Of course, I'll accuse him of not being up to the challenge first, but I'll subsequently comply with his wishes, and all will be right with your world...)

Americaneocon said...

Repsac: How many posts did you put in that comment thread before Pat called you a highjacker? Pat's a fair guy, and calls 'em like he sees 'em.

As I noted earlier, I'd like to see you put up some posts laying out your views, indicating why they are superior to mine or other alternatives, rather than trying to find some conspiracy or censorship in my blogging.

Send me a link if you put up a truly substantive post. Otherwise, it's just ranting.

repsac3 said...

I answered most of this in the same thread where you made that suggestion, actually...

Pat's welcome to his opinion... I just don't happen to share it.

Riddle me this... At what number of comments does it go from a give & take of ideas to hijacking? Would you really prefer it if everyone just agreed with your every word?

I see hijacking more as repeated off topic posts, but I guess others may view it differently...

As far as what I post, I think it's all pretty substantive... But if you prefer, I could just stroke your ego with one of those substantive "attaboys," like so many others do... As I said before... I have no issue with folks being in agreement, but I find it awfully boring to maintain a steady diet of insular thinking. I much prefer to challenge my notions by putting them up against someone else's... ...like yours, fer'instance... But I'll do it my own way, thankyouverymuch... While your offer to dictate the kind of posts you'd prefer me to write is generous, I think I'll make up my own mind...

ECOPHOTOS said...

repsac3, you and I exchanged comments about DD some months ago before you took a blogging hiatus. Let me me update you about DD's behavior since that time.

Whereas DD accuses you of spamming his blog, please note that DD is a notorious spammer and troll of liberal blogs. Since our last communication, he has spammed Echidne (echidneofthesnakes.blogspot) at least a dozen times, The Reaction (Michael Stickings) on at least 6 occasions, and The Impolitic (Libby Spenser) on several occasions.

I have been a guest blogger at The Reaction, and DD has spammed me more than twice.

How DD operates: He will leave a deliberately antagonizing post at a liberal website to attract curious commenters. Anyone who visits (either Burkean Reflections or the necon resurrection thereof) is then subject to derision and scorn by his thug followers.

No matter what you say, no matter what evidence, facts, or footnotes you bring to a discussion, you will be subject to ad hominem attacks. You data sets will be ignored; you will simply be called names.

There is no such thing as an honest discussion with DD or any of his followers; I do not understand why you even waste your time there.

I have a proposal to make (in private). You can find my e-mail address at my website.

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: The Gore Theory of Campaign '08

This is a silly, silly idea... I would hope that very few Democrats would accept any such thing, and I'm surprised anyone's really taking it seriously. (Which is not meant as a swipe at the Professor... I've seen this Klein piece discussed at a few lefty blogs, too.)

The primary season has to play out, and one of the two -- I prefer Obama, but I can't swear I'm not going to vote third party, instead... (Like it matters who I vote for here in NY The Dem electoral collegians already have their suitcases packed...) -- needs to legitimately win the nomination. This whole compromise candidate thing is (or "should be no more than") flogging a dead horse.

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: Responsible Plan? Antiwar Groups Endorse Unconditional Iraq Surrender

"Burn Bush?"

That sounds pretty far out. Taken literally, it almost sounds like an incitement to violence against the president. That's most likely untrue (although some of these people are terrorists).


Some of what people are terrorists? Democrats? Washingtonians? Fundraisers? What are you talking about?

Still, it sounds a little over-the-top, if not ominous.

Yes... Yes, it does...

Terrorists? Really?!?

As I noted Wednesday, in my post, "No Enemies on the Left? Progressives for Barack Obama," the "progressive" label is today's anodyne synonym for "revolutionary socialist."

Would it be too much for me to point out that you did not, in fact, do that? The closest you came was the Wikipedia definition of "Radical Left," which does include a reference to revolutionary socialism. So now "progressive" is added to the mix of pejoratives with which you intend to indiscriminately label those to your left...

(stalinist, radical, revolutionary, marxist, socialist, ...)

Now, as usual, I try not to take my analyses too far, with sweeping generalizations.

If you've deemed progressives revolutionary socialists, that ship sailed long ago...

From The Nation: End the War: Try Again:

The solution to this impasse is, in the words of Congressional candidate Darcy Burner, to elect "more and better Democrats"--Democrats who have publicly committed to pursuing a legislative strategy to end the war.

So at Take Back America, Burner, with nine other Democratic Congressional challengers, releasedA Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. Developed in collaboration with retired military officers and national security professionals, the plan attracted the support of fifteen additional Democratic Senate and House challengers in the first week after it was unveiled (see ResponsiblePlan.com). Unlike the withdrawal plans offered by both Democratic presidential candidates, the Responsible Plan opposes any residual forces as well as permanent military bases. It flatly states, "We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces, and end our military presence in Iraq." It looks toward restoring "Constitutional checks and balances and fix[ing] the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us." It also addresses the need to take responsibility for a humanitarian crisis in which thousands of Iraqis who worked with US forces are in danger and millions are displaced across the region.
-----------

So there you have it, alright.


Other than the obvious point that you disagree with these Democrats, what's wrong with what they're doing? Don't you want the people to have a voice in this, or should we all--left, right, & in between--just shut up & keep trusting the same folks who got us into this situation in the first place? They are putting their ideas before the people & allowing them, through their vote, to decide the future of this country. This is not some radical overthrow... We, the people are voting for those who will best represent our wishes... And however you wish to characterize & demonize these Democrats for their beliefs, they won't be elected unless the American people agrees with them. In some places, voting is a revolutionary act. But here in the US, it's the way our government is set up...

By now it should be fairly clear that even mainstream Democratic candidates are emerging as the vehicle for hardline radical mobilization this season.

It seems you've decided to leave off actually finding any actual radicals supporting Obama, and you're content to bang the drum against any person, group or idea on the left with which you disagree. Which is essentially everyone. (OK, Lieberman may get a pass... maybe... but the rest of the Democrats might as well sink into the ocean.)

We know, for example, that Tom Hayden, the prominent radical 1960s-era activist and politician, has put out a call for all progressives to unite behind Barack Obama's presidential bid.

Is this the same Tom Hayden you wrote about here?:American Power: No Enemies on the Left? Progressives for Barack Obama: "Now some might argue that Hayden's mellowed from his prominent 1960-era radicalism - for example, when he was a member of the Chicago Seven - and, well, he may have to some degree.

But he maintains today, on his personal website, the full-text version of 'The Port Huron Statement,' which is widely considered the most important political document of new left revolutionary socialism of the 1960s era, and Hayden was the statement's primary author."

You never addressed what in the Port Huron Statement so offends you, but I'm beginning to think it's participatory democracy... The idea that the people need to be involved in the decisions that face this country. As Bush said, it's so much easier for a dictator... As long as he's the dictator. When THEY make the decisions, and don't care what the people think, your vision of remaking the world in the US image can go on, unabated.

Now, as the research here illustrates, many of the most implacable, nihilist contingents of the Bush-hating antiwar left have begun to focus their energies on building a "no enemies on the left" electoral coalition for both the presidential and congressional elections.

Leaving aside all the "implacable", "nihilist" (you really need a few new terms... These are way overplayed) "bush-hating" silliness (though I still wish you'd point out a few of these contingents... The closest you came was ELF, but there were no Democrats among them...), what's wrong with the left getting together to vote for the kind of government they want? What's wrong with compromise? Are you not wishing & praying for a "no enemies on the right" coalition that'll get McCain into office? Of course you are...

repsac3 said...

I finally found where Nero spoke of "progressives."

(the term "progressive" has been appropriated by far-left activists in order to make their radical policies appear more mainstream, and hence politically acceptable)

So "radical socialist" = "far left activist" = "progressive"
(= "maxist" = "stalinist" = "revolutionary" = "???" = ...)

While the professor mentions "mainstream Democratic candidates, & even says the Clinton years were centrist in one of his recent pieces (*see below)--though I won't be at all surprised if he "qualifies" that statement now that I've pointed it out--almost every person, group, or idea on the left that he talks about in any detail is "radicalmarxiststalinistprogressivefarleftsocialist."

It's almost as though there are Republicans, Joe Lieberman, and these radmarstaproflsocs

Crazy man, crazy...

*American Power: "Yet there's considerable evidence that after the Clinton years of DLC centrism, a far-left wing version of Democratic Party liberalism has definitely made a comeback"

Americneocon said...

Repsac3:

1) ECL is a domestic terrorist group, whose members have identified with the Democrats, is it not? I said nothing more at the post.

2) "Revolutionary socialist" is from Wikipedia's definition.

I already specified definitions, so you either don't read well, you doubt the veracity of anything I write, or you've nothing - and I mean nothing - to discount my posts or to add to the debate.

It's all there, Repsac. Indeed, as one of my commenters noted at the post, Burner's simply the Kos electoral stooge.

I'm getting tire of this. I'm going to suggest once more that you write your own ESSAYS and drop the link in my Halscan, and I'll evaluate them.

Otherwise, your looking more foolish, and wasting everyone's time.

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: Responsible Plan? Antiwar Groups Endorse Unconditional Iraq Surrender

Reply to: American Power - Comments: "Steve J. ... how about a link?

This doesn't square with many other reports we are getting, from sources inside and outside the MSM.

Understand that, to some, 'national reconciliation' involves 'reconciling' their opponents to the peace of the graveyard ... not exactly respectful of life and liberty, and not something our nation should condone as an outcome of our intervention.
Rich Casebolt | Homepage | 03.29.08 - 8:03 am | #"

Steve's link, for Rich: All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows

I'd really like to believe this surge is doing more than just preventing the eventual civil war between/among the sects until we draw down, but I've seen little evidence to show it. If the goal of the surge was to lessen sectarian violence while we're still there, it's been working so far. But what matters--what has always mattered--are the political solutions that will make our continued presence less & less necessary. (...unless we plan to make Iraq our 51st state, & evermore maintain the "surge" level of troops to prevent the violence, I mean).

The band-aid that the sure has been is fine, but eventually the band-aid has to come off. It was never a be all & end all in itself, and we can't really judge it's effectiveness until it ends. But so far, so good...

repsac3 said...

1) ECL is a domestic terrorist group, whose members have identified with the Democrats, is it not? I said nothing more at the post.

I don't even know who ECL is... The eco-terrorists you posted about are called the Earth Liberation Front or ELF (which is why they call themselves "elves.") It's members have NOT identified with the Democrats, or if they have, you have not shown it... At least, you haven't by posting that quote from the 2006 Washington Post article that talks about the environmental MOVEMENT, and mentions that some are supporting mainstream advocates such as former Vice President Al Gore. The environmental movement is not the same as thing as ELF. (though ELF is one tiny part of the environmental movement.)

2) "Revolutionary socialist" is from Wikipedia's definition.

I already specified definitions, so you either don't read well, you doubt the veracity of anything I write, or you've nothing - and I mean nothing - to discount my posts or to add to the debate.


I understand where "revolutionary socialist" came from. I even said so...

But when you say "as I pointed out in my previous post, the "progressive" label is today's anodyne synonym for "revolutionary socialist," you're playing fast & loose with the terminology, and you know it... What you actually said in that piece was "the term "progressive" has been appropriated by far-left activists in order to make their radical policies appear more mainstream, and hence politically acceptable"

Look again:
"as I pointed out in my previous post, the "progressive" label is today's anodyne synonym for "revolutionary socialist,"
progressive = radical socialist

"the term "progressive" has been appropriated by far-left activists in order to make their radical policies appear more mainstream, and hence politically acceptable"
progressive = far left activist

radical socialist = progressive = far left activist

But in that same piece, you also offered the following from Wikipedia:
...the "radical" qualifier tends in this case to denote a revolutionary fervor, and is a subset of, but should not be confused with, the far left.

Note Wikipedia's reference to the "far left," which is a term used more commonly with reference to political competition in European parliamentary democracies (with the extreme left being represented by neo-Stalinism), but is still valid in U.S. political discourse when discussing extreme left-wing partisans.


There you explicitly say that the "far left" does NOT equal "radicals", and yet you casually intertwine them above, as though they are synonamous. Whether by fault or design, you're playing fast with your terms...

It's all there, Repsac. Indeed, as one of my commenters noted at the post, Burner's simply the Kos electoral stooge.

Why call her anyone's stooge? Because she believes what they believe, and you do not?

The deal is, there are alot of people that don't share your views, and whatever you think of them, they intent to vote for candidates that best represent their ideas & ideals. It's one thing to think all those people foolish, and to belittle their beliefs, but you make it sound like some kinda conspiracy is going on, when the fact of it is, it's just people with whom you don't agree running for office, & citizens who agree with them more than with you, voting for them.

I'm getting tire of this. I'm going to suggest once more that you write your own ESSAYS and drop the link in my Halscan, and I'll evaluate them.

I am not often an essayist. I am more of a commentator.

Otherwise, your looking more foolish, and wasting everyone's time.

I don't fear you or your crowd thinking me foolish half as much as I fear some of your one sided (mis)information hitting the nether regions of the internet unopposed. But thank you for thinkin' of me...

I note you neglected to specify who you meant by (although some of these people are terrorists)., or what you objected to in that section of (or ANY of) the Port Huron Statement, or who the centrist Democrats are... I'm not surprised, but I figured I'd give you another shot.

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: McCain is Right on al Qaeda-Iran Alliance in Iraq

Reply to: American Power - Comments: "Hey, Taheri's the expert, and I trust what he says about McCain's points:

'The truth is that Sunni and Shiite extremists have always been united in their hatred of the U.S., and in their desire to 'bring it to destruction,' in the words of Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar.... The problem they face is not theological but political. All they need to know is that there are deadly and determined groups dedicated to destruction of the U.S. in the name of a perverted version of Islam, and that they need to be resisted, fought and ultimately defeated.'

If you want to focus on sweet kisses in someone's ear, hey, great. But I'll focus on national security, and I'm convinced McCain's the right one for the job in defeating the multifarious alliance of terrorist groups arrayed against us.

I get the feeling you're backing our enemies, because that's what's happening with the other candidates, so whether you're an Obama supporter or a Paulite, or whatever, the surrender agenda all those groups support will be a disaster for American foreign policy.

If you have more to say, you should go write a blog post and leave the link here.

Otherwise you'll just be rambling, incoherent, and irritating."


Putting aside whether Taheri's actually the expert, the fact that McCain corrected himself after those Lieberman aural kisses, and hasn't been saying the same things as Taheri since that episode, says that even if Taheri's right, and McCain actually did speak the truth in that Jordan press conference, the republican candidate isn't aware of it.

repsac3 said...

ecophotos: I replied to you with the following e-mail a few days ago (to an AOL address), but figured I'd post here, since I've not heard back as yet (just in case there was some kinda glitch).

---------
E-mail: I know what you're saying, but I'm drawn to rightwing craziness like a cat drawn to the 'nip... It makes me all playful & giddy like a schoolgirl...

I just don't take any of the negativity all that seriously... People will be what they'll be...

At the same time, I investigate my own ideas for chinks in the armor, & I even confess to rethinking a few things, as a result...

But enough about me...
What's your proposal?
-----------------

(Reading it over, I tweaked sentence or two here... But it's essentially the same.)

Get back to me when you're able... And if the address I'm using is wrong, um... we'll have to work something out, seeing as how you seem reluctant to give it out here... (I tend to be, as well...)

Donald Douglas said...

EcophotoMan doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I haven't been to Echidne for probably a year. I've commented maybe once at the Reaction.

Although I comment all the time at The Impolitic, because I can't stand Libby Spencer. I've beaten her in debate, and I'll looking to do it again. She's deleted my comments so many times it's funny, but hey, her blog, her rules.

Ecophoto's a liar, and he's always hiding behind his daughter's flak jacket. No class, whatsoever.

Let's see the links over here to all those posts. I'll cop to it, of course, because there's no shame to it if you're debating.

The problem with Repsac is he's obssessed with comments, picking apart each and every word, unable to look at the big picture.

Not good to even be hanging with these folks, Reppy.

repsac3 said...

A comment just to insult people, Nero, free of any political content?

I would've thought that to be beneath you... ...especially when there are so many questions & points left unanswered...

I'm sorry, Nero... But you cannot sell your big picture at the expense of little truths... When you exaggerate, play fast & loose with terminology & shift goalposts, I'm going to call you on it... ...every time I see it.

Seldom will I declare anyone a winner or a loser, because unlike you, I trust that those who read such debates are intelligent enough to judge for themselves, and don't need anyone to tell them.

But hey, thanks for visiting, anyway... I hope that next time you'll do less insulting and more debating, but every word you write helps paint the picture of who you really are, so I'll leave that up to you...

Americaneocon said...

I called out Eco-Man, Reppy.

He's your commenter, so if you're going to hold people to high standards, you should be fair, as he's lying. If he's not, I'll respond to the links, but I haven't commented at Echidne in months, which is my point, to which instead you shift the goal posts.

As for progressives, it's my THESIS that they are indeed today's revolutionary socialists, which I have said many times in the series that my research is COMPILING data to substantiate the claiming, and by far conclusive. So, you can't attack me for doing something I have not done.

Instead of of alleging my insults, you ought to be writing your own posts indicating how progressives today indeed are distinct from radicals as I've defined them.

So far you haven't done that.

repsac3 said...

He's your commenter, so if you're going to hold people to high standards, you should be fair, as he's lying. If he's not, I'll respond to the links, but I haven't commented at Echidne in months, which is my point, to which instead you shift the goal posts.

In fact, I've neither supported or denied his allegations. Frankly, it doesn't matter enough to me where you do & do not post for me to investigate it, either way. He's welcome to offer his evidence (or not), and you're welcome to offer yours (or not). Either way, I'm not getting involved at this stage...

And, please be so kind as to explain your comment about my shifting goalposts in this matter. What were they to start with, and to what did I shift them?

As for progressives, it's my THESIS that they are indeed today's revolutionary socialists, which I have said many times in the series that my research is COMPILING data to substantiate the claiming, and by far conclusive. So, you can't attack me for doing something I have not done.

I stand by my previous comment on this. You were initially very specific, both in quoting Wikipedia & in your own comment, saying Wikipedia:
...the "radical" qualifier tends in this case to denote a revolutionary fervor, and is a subset of, but should not be confused with, the far left.

AmericanNeoCon: Note Wikipedia's reference to the "far left," which is a term used more commonly with reference to political competition in European parliamentary democracies (with the extreme left being represented by neo-Stalinism), but is still valid in U.S. political discourse when discussing extreme left-wing partisans.


Once again, you explicitly say that the "far left" does NOT equal "radicals", and yet you casually intertwine them above, as though they are synonamous. Whether by fault or design, you're playing fast with your terms...

If you now wish to allege that all progressives are revolutionary socialists, you're welcome to go there, but I would ask you to once again define your terms, seeing as how Leon Baradat's definition of "Radical" is now at best only tangentially related to your new claim of Progressives = revolutionary socialists.

Instead of of alleging my insults, you ought to be writing your own posts indicating how progressives today indeed are distinct from radicals as I've defined them.

Ah... That pesky burden of proof thing, again... You are alleging that progressives are revolutionary socialists. It is for you to back up your allegation, not for me to prove you incorrect.

Progressives are revolutionary socialists, you say...

I will read your offers of proof with interest, and reply once I have.

repsac3 said...

Therad: American Power: Democrats Hijacked by Hard-Left Base, Lieberman Says

All I can say is that Joe is a man without a party. Democrats don't want him, and Republicans won't take him, either.

Should McCain actually win this election, Lieberman had better hope & pray that his buddy John is grateful for all the shuckin' & shillin' he's done, and that he appoints Lieberman to somethin' or other. Otherwise, poor ol' Joe is going to find himself out of a job... At least until the inevitable:

"For his take on the story, Hannity & Colmes welcomes FoxNews analyst Joe Lieberman..."

(FNC: Home of all-too-many disgraced political hacks & once were's.)

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: Cordesman Shakes the Kaleidoscope of Iraq

This Cordesman piece appeared elsewhere 3-5 days ago in a slightly different form... I was curious what your take on it would be...

The last lines of his analysis are the ones that most concern me:

A Civil War Iraq Can’t Win - New York Times: "How will it affect America? If the fighting sets off a broad, lasting, violent power struggle between Shiite factions, most of the security gains of the last year could be lost and our military role broadened. There is also no guarantee that a victory by Dawa and the Islamic Supreme Council will serve the cause of political accommodation or lead to fair elections and the creation of legitimate local and provincial governments. Such an outcome, in fact, might favor a Dawa and Islamic Supreme Council “Iraqracy,” not democracy."

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: Muslim Students Association Seeks U.S. Destruction

Having read both the Horowitz piece and the two newspaper links that you offer for more info - Muslim Students: How American should they be? - International Herald Tribune and Muslim youth forge own path in America -- chicagotribune.com, I have to point out that the two newspaper articles paint a vastly different picture of the Muslim Student Association than Horowitz does.

The news articles describe kids in transition, facing some of the same problems that kids of other more conservative cultures face. And to a lesser extent, it made me wonder about evangelical kids who go off to college, & how similar their experiences probably sound to these Muslim kid's. Values (religious, cultural, moral) are going to be tested. Some will maintain their values, some will adapt them, and a few will lose them altogether. That is the nature of our multi-religious -ethnic -cultural society.

The Horowitz piece is some kinda dark side of the moon look at these same kids. While it is well footnoted, almost all of them refer to other Horowitz/FrontPage authored bits of guilt by association horror & fear. I'll read the rest of these as they appear, but I tend to be skeptical of any person or organization that cites itself as proof of what it's saying. Until there are more than a few screaming heads telling us all to fear the radical this & the fascist that, I'm going to go with the mainstream press accounts on this...

ECOPHOTOS said...

DD: I've beaten her in debate, and I'll [sic] looking to do it again.

The only thing Donald Duck has beaten lately is a raw egg, and my statement is about as unverifiable as his statement because both statements are merely unproven assertions by their respective authors. Of course, my statement may be too sophisticated for DD. In any case, the next time you take on Libby, at least make sure there is an objective party to determine the winner of the debate. Or just shut-up and act like a gentleman instead of an adolescent snot nose.

DD: Ecophoto's a liar.

It is very easy to prove that I am not a liar, but DD is too uncleaver to use Google. In fact, he trolled Echidne three times in the same week. DD has the finesse of a drive-by shooter terrorizing freeway motorists. Furthermore, DD has used alias pseudonyms to bother people, but the man is too stupid to realize that even his dumbest alias comments bear the same IP address as his real name. Great job, Brownie, errr, Donald.

DD: he's always hiding behind his daughter's flak jacket. No class, whatsoever.

A certifiable ad hominem and a clear non sequitur hurled by a fifth rate academic from a fourth rate school.

Despite his so-called conservative leanings, DD does not support the troops, only the ones he approves of, and only the ones who agree with him. How is it that Franks, Battista, Clark, and dozens of other generals are critics of the Iraq War? Does that make them traitors and liars as DD characterizes anyone who disagrees.

Last, but by no means least, The Duck does not understand even the basics of democracy, where there are rights to free speech and freedom of conscience. But not according to the Duck who respects no diversity of opinion whatsoever except for hurling epithets and invective like the ones he hurls here and in his own forum.

So what is DD if anything? He is little more than the stereotype of a pimple-faced schoolyard bully who enjoys smear and jeer. This makes him a total waste of time.

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: Muslim Students Association Seeks U.S. Destruction
Reply to: Comment: Americaneocon

I'd would think you'd find the post balanced in its presentation.

I guess I'm surprised because your posts so seldom are balanced in this way. I'd actually call the news articles contradictory to the Horowitz bit...

Note that just because, Repsac3, Horowitz cites the research of his own organization, doesn't make his case any less true.

It doesn't make his case true or false at all, and I didn't claim it was one or the other in noting that he cites himself.

That said, there's a reason for independent peer review, and just about all research becomes more credible when the findings are reported by multiple sources approaching the issue from variety of biases & disciplines. That Horowitz cites only one source--himself--suggests that he either has a ginormous ego, or that no other source supports his findings. Either way, it make the work appear suspect. But you are correct; Horowitz's shoddy sourcing itself doesn't prove him wrong.

Repsac3, you're not going to agree with anything I write over here, because my posts CHALLENGE YOUR OWN IDEOLOGY.

More than likely true.

You are part of these progressive radicals, and all you've done in my posts is nitpick, but you've never argued against the thesis: Today's progressives are indeed revolutionary socialists who want to move the country dramatically away from the current regime, to a system more like the social democratic states of Europe, and that's being charitable.

As you've not provided much in the way of evidence for your thesis, I have little to argue against. Perhaps if you were to more completely define your terms, and then show how the definition fits whatever portion of the left you're including in your indictment today, we might be able to get somewhere.

You might wish to start by more fully exploring revolutionary socialism, and determining whether they are compatible with the social democracy you claim they want. From what I've read, revolutionary socialists & social democrats have neither the same methods or goals (& haven't, since the early 1900's).

Also, I notice you did not rebujt the Lieberman post. You argue he's a man without a party, but you don't refute his points.

Again, there is nothing to rebut. Joe's welcome to think as he likes, and you are welcome to believe him. He didn't prove anything by stating his opinion, and you prove nothing by agreeing with him.

Answer this: Do you deny that we have a contemporary radical movement that would like a dramatic change of the current regime, preferably through the electoral process, although some cells of the movement advocate and practice violence?

Way too broad, Donald.

If this is simply your way of asking whether Democrats want a Democratic President rather than a Republican one, yes, they do. (but I know of no "cells advocating or practicing violence" in furtherance of that goal.)

But if that isn't what you mean, you'll need to be more specific, and to define "radical movement," and "current regime," in the context of whatever it is you're talking about, and then explain which cells of this radical movement advocate or practice violence to achieve this "regime change."

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: "Fitna": Islamist Univeralism and Western Civilization

While the film does a good job of exposing terrorist acts, it indicts all Muslims by linking terrorism with the Koran. I'm concerned about what the filmmaker, and those who agree with the message of this film, believe to be the solution for his country, or for ours.

Preemptive administrative detention or deportation for those are suspected of being radical Islamists?

Banning of the Koran & the burqua from the country?

Legally defining the nation as Judeo-Christian, effectively making those of other faiths second class citizens?

Yes, there are dangerous radical Islamists who justify their actions by pointing to statements in the Koran, but to believe they are correct, and to therefore paint this as a struggle between the Islamic east & the Judeo-Christian west is to use far too large a brush, in my opinion. While at first glance the film seems to be calling out an enemy that all people of peace & freedom need to oppose, it has undertones of racism & intolerance that go against our American (& from what I understand, the filmmaker's Dutch) values and traditions.

Personally, I think Americans should listen to more moderate Muslims, in addition to the islamist militant ones, before turning a suspicious eye toward every Middle Eastern person we see. Here's one: Video interview: Islamic scholar Reza Aslan (Author: No God But God)

More Wilders info:
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Profile: Geert Wilders (Click on the "Hardtalk" link to watch an interview with Wilders, in which he speaks of these measures, and others)

repsac3 said...

Thread:American Power: Imagine, Obama a Liberal: It's Easy If You Try
Reply to: Americaneocon | 04.02.08 - 10:08 am

Neo, you're making claims, and not backing them up with evidence (instead, expecting others to prove your claims wrong).

I'm sorry that you disapprove of my pointing that out, but life is like that.

You mention Tom Hayden. What are the radical transformations he seeks, that will bring the US closer to a socialist state?

Still no domestic terrorists supporting Obama (or Gore... Again, that article was about the environmental MOVEMENT, not ELF members. Repeating the claim makes it no more truthful.)

Where is the revolutionary socialism in KOS as a whole? (Again, there may well be a few...)

If you cannot provide evidence proving them, no rebuttal of your claims is even necessary. If you can assert them without offering evidence, I can deny them the same way.

repsac3 said...

Thread: American Power: Imagine, Obama a Liberal: It's Easy If You Try

Reply to: Americaneocon | 04.02.08 - 4:17 pm

Port Huron Statement, which I provided, and is widely considered the socialist manifesto of the 1960s.

Aside Horowitz (predictably), I can find no one who links the terms "Port Huron Statement" and "Socialist Manifesto". Widely, may be stretching things, a bit.

I call them radical, because they are, according to scholarly consensus on the ideology.

Cite all (or at least some of) that scholarship, please.

ELF members claimed to want to move to support mainstream candidates, mentioning the Democratic Party and Al Gore. If Obama becomes the nominee, by implication he has their support.

Read the actual quote again, Don:

Earth Liberation Front Faces Justice: "Johnston and other activists, community members, investigators and experts agreed that environmental protest by arson had pretty much run its course long before 'Operation Backfire,' a joint task force of federal and state agencies, began making arrests in 2005.

They say the environmental movement remains strong - building on the work of grass roots activists, or supporting mainstream advocates such as former Vice President Al Gore, or going deeper underground to avoid the fate of the 10 activists brought to justice in Eugene."


That isn't talking about ELF members, it's talking about the environmental movement, as a whole, not losing strength after the end of "environmental protest by arson" situations, because the movement as a whole was already involved in a variety of other activities. If they were referring to the ELF eco-terrorists in particular, they would've said the ELF in place of the words "environmental movement" in that paragraph.

I'd address the "Nation" article, but I'm not seeing it... All I can say is that many of those on the left are supporting Obama, and intend to vote for him... Many articles say so... If you're twisting that to mean "Radical protest groups are using the electoral process..." (without defining who the groups are, why you believe them to be radical, or what's so radical about using the electoral process, even if the unnamed groups ARE actually radical, and of course whether these radicals are also revolutionary socialists...)

Please finish this sentence:
MoveOn is a radical left (&/or revolutionary socialist?) organization because___

So, your game is to deny or ignore radical support for Barack Obama, which indicates that you're well aware how unaccepable that label and that agenda is to the broad population.

No, my "game" is to deny that you can make the case that the folks you're interchangably calling radicals, revolutionaries, socialists, marxists, stalinists, ... are in fact, radicals, revolutionaries, socialists, marxists or stalinists, as the broad population (& your average high school or college texts) understands & defines those words. I'm accusing you of dishonestly labeling just about anything to the political left of Lieberman as radical socialist. For the most part, real revolutionaries have given up electoral politics. Commies & socialists want no part of either major party. Radicals are too impatient to wait for change that comes as slow as it does through the polls. You may find a few, from some org or another... But the commies et al that you folks on the right usually whine about (the reds in ANSWER, UfPJ, & World Can't Wait, among others) are not supporting major party candidates...

I believe that a good look at what you're saying will reveal that you're labeling as "radical socialists" a good part of that broad population you mentioned.

As I said in my last post, you give me nothing to rebut. All I can do is to point out your unwillingness to name the names & or explain their ties to this so called socialist agenda, as though your simply typing the words makes it so. Yes, I deny you're offering more than charges. If I'm evading anything, you'll have to be more specific. Cheering for the defeat of the US? Of course I am, Don... Of course I am... But um... Pray tell how, exactly?
What groups am I even supporting?
How is that support cheering for anyone's defeat?
Are political ideas different from your own really so scary that you must turn them into "support for the enemy"? My God...

mimicking my own arguments from elsewhere

Biobrain's right... You really do accuse people of the exact things they accuse you of... I never noticed that, before...

you don't know what you're talking about, with all due respect.

Teach me, professor... Teach me...
My questions are many. I await your educational replies...