In case Nero deletes it: Democrats destroying the US?

Nero sez:

Reppy: The "one post" then "one response" rule is still in effect. If you can't be concise, let it go. No double posting. Wait 'till I respond.

Now, here's what I said at the post:

"...one of the antiwar left's most common attacks on the Iraq war is the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."

This is true, for example:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wm...0701- pipa01.htm

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/

Thus, it makes no sense for Farley to argue that an absence of terrorist threat explains declining public support. Dan and D don't dispute that. They pick nits by narrowing the case down to "operational." My argument still stands, and Farley's a hack.

The whole "Bush Lied, People Died" is based on the claim of no WMD in Iraq, and no Qaeda ties to Saddam. Just ask the radical Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline/

You're a fraud to deny it.

Other than that, you're dodging the other issues. I'm not changing the subject. I've made my point, and have made a second one: You are psychologically and ideological closed-minded to anything I write.

And you're a hypocrite: "Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..."

You concede these people are Democrats, then you deny that they don't want to destroy the U.S. (which doesn't have to be by force, but by undermining the conservative cultural model of the nation since the founding). As I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.

This debate's done. I'll continue the exchange elsewhere, but I stand by my point: You're a denialist. I mean, what does this even mean:

"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."

My posts are routinely picked up by right-wing activists AND folks in the MSM (especially RCP). The fact that I have so many detractors is evidence to me that I'm hitting close to home, and the American Power fan mail is a nice example of that.

To conclude: The Dems are the party of defeat, as Horowitz lays out. I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.

I'm moving on...
Americaneocon | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 8:47 am | #

-----------
My reply:

In fact, Donnie, nowhere in either link is the argument made by anyone that "...Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."

GlobalSecurity.org talks about a poll regarding the beliefs of Americans on the subject of "when the US government presented evidence of links between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda to justify going to war with Iraq," it was either "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" or was "presenting evidence they knew was false" (46% and 10% respectively). Just 39% said they thought the government was "being fully truthful."

Similarly, the Alternet story discusses the words of Bush vs the words of military & foreign policy agencies & think tanks, but never once mentions Saddam Hussain, let alone whether or not he had ties to AQ of any kind.

The ThinkProgress link has one mention, at least:

APRIL 6, 2007: Pentagon report criticizes Feith’s office, finds no Iraq-al Qaeda link.

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides “all confirmed” that Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday. [Washington Post, 4/6/07]

Seems like the nihilists in that story are in the Pentagon, though... And again, they are not claiming NO ties whatsoever... Just nothing operational.

As for Farley, I've never even mentioned him...

Count me among those "pickin' the nits" (If by nits, you mean debunking your outlandish claim that many on the left believe Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda.) While you may (eventually) find one or two on the left saying that, it clearly isn't the widespread belief you say it is... ...and thus, the fruit of that tree is similarly debunked.

Other than that, you're dodging the other issues.

Speak up... If you specify the issue(s) you believe I'm dodging, in this post, I'll gladly reply... And, I invite you to do the same...

I'm not changing the subject.

Don, when you bring up a different post and the fact that I didn't reply to it--which is what you did--you're changing the subject. But believe as you will...

To be clear: Are you really saying that by opposing McCain Palin, those Democrats (& I assume ALL Democrats) ARE IN FACT trying to destroy America by opposing the cultural conservative model on which you believe this country was founded?
Classic. Absolutely classic.

As I'm not sure whether your declaration about being done & moving on means you will remove this comment, I'll stop here. If you really want to know what I meant about the Mel Morgan thing & your detractors, I'll post the explanation on my blog, so as not to take up any more of your precious space here...

repsac3 | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 10:15 am | #

----------

Now, to continue from where I left off...

First off, can anyone tell me why my saying ""Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..." makes me a hypocrite? Is there a video somewhere of me flipping anyone off, or of defending that gesture when used against those with whom one disagrees, politically? I think not... Just more NeoCon NeroCon bluster, devoid of substance...

I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.

Sadly, no. Here's what Brownstein actually says:

National Journal Magazine - Born Fighting, MoveOn Isn't Letting Up: "The purposes to which MoveOn applies these vast resources are more debatable. The group has become a favored target for Republicans and a source of anxiety for some Democratic centrists, who worry that it points the party too far left. On domestic issues, it fits within the Democratic mainstream. But on national security, it defines the party's left flank."

It looks to me like Brownstein is not saying what Nero claims he is... Why am I not surprised?

I mean, what does this even mean:

"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."

It means that you should be intellectually honest. If you believe having others of your ilk agree with you is some kinda proof that you are correct (which is a belief I don't happen to subscribe to, but I can easily find five examples of your suggesting that you're correct, because "X" or "Y" posted the same thing), you ought to also at minimum entertain the possibility that when several of your detractors all say the same things about your style of argumentation, they may also be correct. If numbers don't lie on the right, numbers don't lie on the left.

I'm surprised you didn't understand that, the first time...

I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.

You haven't even made your case, Donnie.

Define nihilist.
Show how the definition fits some/any/all Democrats.

When you do that (if ever you do--I've been asking for over a year), we'll talk about your case. Until then, it's just you waving your arms in the air & claiming to be flying...

McCain uses Bush's Free Speech Zones

McCain = Bush

The video:



The news report:


The press release: Progress Now Action | Alan Franklin: Press Release: First Amendment Rights Violated by McCain Campaign

When will these folks learn that America is a "Free Speech Zone?"

John McCain: Don't hope...

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...

AmericanNeoCon edits me out.

The post: American Power: Ecoterrorism and the Democrats: More on the Radical Left

My first reply, as originally posted:

I'm examing the nature of today's far left-wing movement in campaign '08, particularly the degree to which contemporary radicals are rallying to the Obama banner. So far, there some's evidence for this in Tom Hayden's call earlier this week for the left to unite behind the Illinois Senator, " Progressives for Obama."

There is?

Which radical(s) have rallied to the Obama banner?

Tom Hayden? (& the other authors of that piece, Bill Fletcher Jr, Danny Glover, & Barbara Ehrenreich)?

How can you claim there has been some evidence that contemporary radicals are rallying to the Obama banner, yet and not name any contemporary radicals who actually have rallied to the Obama banner?

Captain Ed's got an interesting post

I think that’s Malkin’s Hot Air.

Minor pick from the “Captain’s” post: Apparently, the sobriquet only applies if one actually kills people, at least in Salon’s eyes.

Actually, that was the law, up until recently… Is Briana Waters a terrorist? | Salon News: "Historically, the crime of terrorism has required civilian deaths. In fact, the State Department defined terrorism as 'premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants.' But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense 'calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government' or 'to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.' Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action."

At first glance, I hesitatingly support the change, as long as the courts apply the new laws fairly… Should wackos on the right start murdering “abortionists,” again, I want the same laws to apply… And I’ll be interested to see how broadly it’s applied to various interest groups.

Now, to be clear: There's no mention of partisan political ties between the ECL terrorists and the Barack Obama campaign.

So what you’re saying is, these radicals (& I agree that these are radicals) are not rallying to the Obama campaign.


Still, a quick link to the Earth Liberation Front homepage indicates (as of March 27, 20008) that some activists in the eco-liberation movement advocate closer ties to the Democratic Party, specifically the Al Gore global-warming ayatollah wing.

Please go back ASAP & explain that… Because from what I see,

Mentions of the word “democrat” on the homepage – 1 – from a 2006 Washington Post article:
“FBI Arrests 3 Suspected ELF Members In Placer Co.In Fire's Wake, Logging Study Inflames Debate University Study Challenges Cutting Of Burnt Timber
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post
February 27, 2006”

reprinted on the ELF home page.

Let’s try the word “Gore.” – 5 matches:

1) From what appears to be another reprinted news story, but has no byline: 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.
2) A banner link on the left side of the page: Did you Know that Al Gore Invented the Internet ? Find out the Truth about Al Gore Invented The Internet - we have Al to thank for the World Wide Web
3) Same ad as #2
4) Banner ad just below the previous one: It's time we make the Corporations pay for the damages caused by global warming. Read about the Global Warming Lawsuit- you might be eligible for a settlement check! President Al Gore has pledged to help clean up the environment and reverse the effects of Global Warming.
5) A letter written to the webmaster by a right winger: Recent Letter To Webmaster:
As a Marine, I find the worst form of coward to be one that does what you asses do on a regular basis. When you blow up a lot full of SUV’S how much damage are YOU doing to the environment? Talk about carbon! But I know “ don’t judge by our results , judge on our intent” What a bunch of left wing pussies. Well here is an open invitation to come get my SUV, but remember some of us are still armed , and well trained. Get a life. Your professors were wrong, ALGORE is not God , the earth doesn’t love you, God gave us the earth to use AND take care of . OH one more thing trees grow back, in case you missed that in school. Really the only way that you can not impact the earth , is to not exist! So do me and the rest of humanity , and mother earth, a favor and remove your unbathed hippy ass out of the equation! That ‘d be a true testament to Mother Earth. Ahhh I can feel the love now!!!!
Jim H.

So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”? Did I use the wrong words?
--------------------

But it seems that NeroCon had other plans: Here's what's there now, thanks to Nero's edit:

American Power - Comments: "So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”? Did I use the wrong words?
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 6:41 pm | #"

Cowardly, or what?

I'll update, as the debate continues.
------------------

While I was being edited, I was replying to Nero's comment, which said:

I linked to ECL, Repsac.

I was there, obviously... I brought back anything linked to Dems or to Gore. There was no there, there.

I'm asking you to be specific, not just claim there were unnamed folks advocating unnamed ties.
-------------

But while I was doing that, Nero was changing his reply, to read:

Me: "So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”?

I linked to ECL, Repsac, and added the quote. The site provides no link to the source:

"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. “The environmental problems on the planet aren't getting any better, they're getting worse,” said Jim Flynn, former editor of the Earth First! Journal and a veteran of protests in Eugene. 'People will do what it takes to either try and stop environmental degradation, or draw attention to it.'"
---------

That quote is from a 2006 Washington Post article:
“FBI Arrests 3 Suspected ELF Members In Placer Co. In Fire's Wake, Logging Study Inflames Debate University Study Challenges Cutting Of Burnt Timber
By Blaine Harden
 - Washington Post - 
February 27, 2006”

I had already posted that info, before the edit. That's the only time the word "Democrat" appears on the ELF page.
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 9:10 pm | #
-----------

Obama doesn't need to endorse them, but the fact is that they prefer him.
Shoprat | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 7:45 pm | #
------------

Whether or not they prefer him (& perhaps, to who?) is what the professor is aiming to show... with examples eventually, I hope.

I see he's convinced one person, already... I hope you don't mind if I wait until he's actually linked a few radicals to the Obama campaign, before agreeing with you.

(If I'm feeling really charitable, I might give him Hayden, even though the guy hasn't actually done anything politically radical in a very long time... There was a time when his ideas were radical, but both the times, and he, have changed.)
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 8:44 pm | #
------------

Repsac3: My blog, my rules.

You're generating complaints and you're bothering me. I'll debate, but I won't be harranged. If you've got a lot to say, write it on your blog, and drop the link here, within my blog rules. Look how I've debated at Biobrain's, post and response, not obssess and obssess, like you're doing here.

Also, I carefully avoid sweeping generalizations at the ECL post, so you're critizing me for something I haven't done. ECL works through some mainstreams groups. I claim nothing more.
Americaneocon | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 9:35 pm | #
------

I thought I was doing pretty well, aside the html accident...

But as with everything else, I cannot force you to use a level playing field...

We'll give it a shot, but I think I'm going to post to my blog, with a link to yours, so that I know you cannot again edit my words after I've posted them. I find that most distasteful...

You're welcome to post at W&M, as long as you don't just drop your comments anywhere, as you did last week... Please stay on topic for the post... I intend to keep an open thread, just for you.

I never used the words "sweeping generalization" to describe your ELF post, did I? Where is the criticism?

And where are the mainstream groups through which ELF works? I didn't notice any listed...

Pro-war thuggery

And typically, they're proud of it.

Like the comment one person posted to the video yesterday (since removed, as any dissent from or discussion of the party line lends not to be tolerated in some circles), it's confusing strength with rightness. Getting physical with Code Pink protesters & damaging their property doesn't make you right about continuing the occupation. It only proves you're a thug who chooses not to be civil.

It's thinking like this (& Melanie Morgan, who ripped up a sign taken from a "moonbat" on stage with glee, and a few other leaders in their movement) that encourages & celebrates violence as a way of getting what they want, that leads us into these conflicts. It is often far more courageous to refuse the temptation to violence than to give into it.

Watch the video & decide for yourself whether we want this kinda thinkin' to have any influence over American foreign policy.

(As the poster of the vid is deleting any negative comments about it, I figured I'd bring them here, as I see them. Both sides deserve to be heard.)

Rock the Debates!

What is Rock the Debates?:

Never before in American history has it been more vital to have an open, honest, and innovative examination of America’s problems and solutions.

The best way to sparking the minds of Americans is to open up the presidential debates beyond the Democrat and Republican parties. Rock-the-Debates seeks to include third parties who will energize the presidential debates placing their ideas into the mix, without endorsing or opposing any particular candidate. We just want the ideas out and let the American people decide.

You can play a key role in this unprecedented, historical endeavor.

The idea is to get the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to commit to debate third party candidates.

How? We’ll ask them to debate, get the clip on video, and place it on You-Tube. Folks in places like New Hampshire can play a key, historic, pivotal role in making this happen.

Follow the link above for more details.

Follow the following link to see where it stands, to date:
Third Party Watch - Seven Major Party Candidates Respond to Open Presidential Debates (so far)

CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Protester removed from Fred Thompson event

CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Protester removed from Fred Thompson event

Bryan's comment (July 25, 2007 5:11 pm) says most of what I was thinkin', but seeing as how many commenters have repeated the bit about her being a kook, I've no problem repeating a more balanced view.

Anyone who bothers to watch the video the woman herself shot (this CNN video does not tell the whole story) will see that this woman was acting like every other person there... that is, UNTIL the police/tsa layed hands on her, for reasons that no one has yet explained...

If she had been screaming like that the whole time, I would agree that she deserved to be removed. But she wasn't. Her screaming began BECAUSE she was being removed.

When the police start "removing" people at a candidate's bidding, so that s/he can avoid a tough question or manage a photo op (as when team Bush allows Pro-Bush signs and t-shirts to line a road, but anti-Bush signs and shirts are penned up in "free speech zones"), there is something very wrong. The police are supposed to work for the public, not the powerful.

I'm not endorsing any of her views--I'm not for Ron Paul, and I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that Building 7 was blown up from within, though I do agree that Fred Thompson is not a real conservative and that the North American Union is a really bad idea--but I am endorsing the idea that the people have the right to respectfully (& sometimes disrespectfully) confront the people who are or want to be our elected representitives. Having the authorities remove those folks who don't tow a candidate's (or elected representitive's) party line goes against the American values I was taught.

I hope that the police step up and explain why this woman was removed from this impromptu press conference, and who ordered it.

Here is the woman's blog account: Houston 9|11 Truth Confronts Fred Thompson and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas

Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market

It all started with this post: First Imus...who next? The notion that the firing of Imus was any kind of free speech issue had been getting to me all week, and the toon Skye (the owner of AncoraImparo, the blog where "First Imus" appears) posted was the last straw.

The article she tried to post along with it: Townhall.com::The Imus Lynch Party::By Patrick J. Buchanan was great. Where Buchanan is talking about Imus, I agree with much of what he says. I even agree that Imus' being fired for using the same words in very similar ways that others have and continue to do is hypocritical. I don't think Imus deserved to be fired.

But the idea that the people who wrote & called & threatened boycotts about his words were some kinda lynch mob, or that doing these things is any kind of censorship or free speech issue, is patently ridiculous. So, I set out to find out the basis by which folks were making these claims.

I didn't get much from Skye. If you read the comment section where she & I discussed it, her argument seemed to come down to:
1) "I say it is the public display of unbalanced 'morality' in the American stage that inflicts far more damage to our credibility as a nation and a culture."

In other words, anyone who was offended by Imus should've just kept quiet. Unless you've complained about all instances where anyone may've been offended--especially ones committed by those you support--you have no standing to complain about this one. The world is watching, & you're making us look bad. There was a time when I didn't really understand the concepts of moral relativism & moral equivalency. But I'm starting to...

2) "Using economic forces as a weapon to supress the freedom of speech was a tactic employeed by the German Socialist Workers Party back in the day. We are close, to repeating this brutal mistake which apparently has the full blessing of US liberals."

The difference between individuals, like the ones who did the complaining, & political parties, like the Nazis, seems to escape her. Besides, using the power of the purse to encourage one kind of behavior over another is a tactic employed by individuals, groups, and governments all the time. Everything from picking a certain brand of dish soap, to only buying American, to not shopping at Mal-Wart, is an attempt to affect the behavior of those companies. And the US government has been known to use funding to affect the values of our country, as well.

That was about the extent of it... (at least so far. As of this writing, I was he last one to've commented at her blog. Perhaps Skye will have more to say, & will offer another reason or something.) Not much to explain how or why it's a free speech issue.

So, I moved on, and that's how I got to Mike's America, and his post on the issue: Democrats Announce Media "Enemies List".

Mike says "The lovers of free speech, diversity and tolerance are at it again!" Well, my question is "How is asking for a certain level of behavior an offense to free speech, diversity, or tolerance?"

Like Skye above, Mike's main argument seems to be one of balance. If you don't object to EVERYONE who may be offensive--but especially those to whom you're closest--you shouldn't object to ANYONE who may be offensive.

"Taken out of context and overblown to shock the easily offended sensibilities of self righteous,left wing hyprocritical poseurs bigots who couldn't care less when much much worse is directed at anyone not in one of their protected classes of people. I say: you want to change the culture and clean things up? Fine by me. Start by holding yourselves accountable to the same standard of conduct you daily demand of others."

Leaving aside all the unnecessary (mis)characterizations, Mike's "glass houses" argument isn't persuasive. You start where you start. Whatever one thinks of Imus or the people on Media Matters so-called "enemies list", the issue is current, and these are the people, along with rap artists & comedians, who say the things that some people question.

Is there a political or social element? Sure. Folks who like the rap in question obviously aren't offended by it. If you enjoy or agree with Coulter's friendly little barbs, why would you complain about 'em? But that doesn't mean that others are not offended, & don't have every ethical right to voice their opinions to the people in a position to make changes; the artists, the people for whom they work (labels, stations) & anyone else involved in getting the art from the artist to the public (advertisers, stores)

Let's see whether there's any more in Mike's arsenal:

"I'd like to know when Media Matters will complain about ANY left wing fascist?"

Media Matters is a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
It's very much like NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias or Media Research Center Home Page: America's Media Watchdog, who currently has a banner saying "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias".

The answer is, MM won't complain about any left wing "misinformation," because that isn't their reason for being, any more than NewsBusters or MRC will complain about right wing "misinformation." If you want a more balanced approach, look to omnibudsmen, or perhaps the American public at large. Fairness to all sides isn't the mission of any of these websites, nor should it be.

When I asked Mike about it in the comment section for his post, this was his reply:

"Who commenting here has defended Don Imus? He's one of yours, not ours."

Very interesting, particularly in light of his previous comment (also from the comment section, but not to me) about MM never complaining about anyone on the left... So, if MM had anything to do with Imus' downfall (like being among the first on the net to highlight his comments, perhaps), that would mean MM HAS complained about some (or at least "someone") on the left. (I didn't catch that, till just now...)

That was pretty much our whole conversation about Imus, MM "enemies," and free speech, though in that post of Mike's & a bunch of others between us in that comment section, we addressed other topics. My one other attempt to broach the subject was brushed away by his saying "I responded to your query about Imus. Sorry if my interest in that is less than yours.", almost as though *I* brought it up, and wasn't in the comment section of *HIS* blog posting on the subject, replying to the words he wrote. (I actually checked to make sure I didn't accidentally post my query in the wrong comment section. I hadn't.)

And that, dear readers, is the story of how/why I got to Mike's in the first place, and the beginning of the path to the creation of this blog...