Air America Resorts To Begging

[SimGeek]

Taking a cue from socialist PBS, Air America is quickly getting a lesson in capitalism: If no one wants a crappy, poorly-made product that cannot sell itself and turn a profit, you can always resort to begging. They've also been dropped from Siruis Satellite Radio. No reason given.

An industry news item on the Air America begging:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001181556
Recently, the network had to repay $875,000 to the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, which helped fund the start-up network.
?We know we can?t achieve this next stage of growth without significant help from you, our loyal listeners,? said the network in an email to supporters.


http://www.nysun.com/article/20252

A Clinton administration official who served as a top executive of Air America, the politically liberal radio network, says he was "sickened" to his core by the thought that the network was funded by money taken from a Bronx Boys & Girls Club.

The former White House official, David Goodfriend, said that Air America's investors created a new company soon after discovering the transfers. They were motivated, he said, in part by a desire to avoid the $875,000 liability to the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club.

Mr. Goodfriend said in the deposition that when investors found out about the money from the Boys & Girls Club, "They hear this and hear about other liabilities and conclude, I think we better just form a new company clean of any old liabilities."

Mr. Goodfriend, now a Washington based lawyer, said in the sworn deposition that he refused to sign an agreement that transferred ownership and assets of Air America to a new company, Piquant LLC, from Progress Media because he believed it constituted a "fraudulent conveyance."


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/12777636.htm
Al Franken and Randi Rhodes are getting the boot from Philadelphia airwaves, as WHAT-AM (1340) is pulling off programming from Air America, the liberal talk-radio network.

Today is the last day. A new WHAT lineup will begin Monday, said general manager Kernie Anderson,
who said "things were not working out" with Air America after about a year.


Let's see what we have here:

A fraudulent transfer of money from a Bronx,NY children's club by a club board member who was one of the Air America investors that when it came to light they tried to get out of thru some legal tricks. When that came to light they had to pay it back.

A tie-in to the Clinton administration and the Democratic party.

A $1.5 million lawsuit by creditors that is looking increasingly bad for Air America.

And Philly, one of the major cities carrying Air America, has dumped them this weekend, and will start airing something else come Monday.

Proof again that the liberals left wing message simply can't stand up without artificial life support.

Yeah, I'd say they are in some trouble, and that explains the begging. I'll bet some Hollywood perverts will find it in their hearts to bail them out to keep them on the air. At least in those cities that aren't dumping them.

[reprob8]

You mean to tell me that PBS sponsors such Mobile and Archer Daniels Midland are contributing money towards their own demise?

Maybe Air America Radio is onto something. After all, the The Nation magazine has been around for over 135 years, and Pacifica Radio, which is entirely listener-supported, has been around for over 50. Neither entity believes in kissing corporate ass. Other magazines which have been around for over 100 years are The Atlantic, moderate in political leanings, and Harpers, center-left.

And before you go referring to Hollywood perverts, I suggest you check into any major hotel chain and see what they have to offer for your "viewing pleasure" via their pay-per-view menu. Likewise, if you subscribe to DirecTV, I suggest you check some of their pay-per-view offerings. In case you didn't know, DirecTV is owned by New Corporation, which also owns Faux News. But I don't think you'll be switching away from Hannity & Colmes, Bill O'Really(?), or Brit Hume anytime soon. Here's a perversion for you: The administration paying columnists like Armstrong Williams over $200,000 to promote its policies in violation of US laws.

It's shame that Air America couldn't hire pros at money laundering. But Tom Delay had other commitments, and even though drug money would have been a great help, they already had their money invested in supporting Ronald Reagan's contras, and Colombian militias.

Here's cracker for being such a good parrot. Maybe some day an original thought may cross your mind...But it'll need a canteen. bootyshak

[andy]

Just for the record...

Sirius did not drop Air America. Air America dropped Sirius. You can read all about it in the XM Press Release (http://www.xmradio.com/newsroom/screen/pr_2005_04_11_a.html) announcing the exclusivity deal:

"XM was a natural fit to be the official satellite radio network of Air America Radio, given its large subscriber base, numerous distribution channels and demonstrated growth," said Danny Goldberg, CEO of Air America Radio.
"The quality of XM's other partnerships, their Washington, D.C. location and proximity to the center of our nation's political workings, along with millions of subscribers, made our decision easy."

(from your friendly neighborhood Sirius dealer)

[SimGeek]

Just for the record...

Sirius did not drop Air America. Air America dropped Sirius.
Fair enough, but what are the ratings?

[SimGeek]

Excerpt from:
Why Air America doesn't fly

By Brian C. Anderson

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0421/p09s01-coop.html
So why do liberals fare so poorly on air? Some on the left say it's because liberals are, well, smarter and can't convey their sophisticated ideas to the rubes who listen to talk radio. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, whose own stint as a talk-show host was a ratings disaster, gave canonical expression to this self-serving view. Conservatives "write their messages with crayons," he maintained. "We use fine-point quills."
Yet even if we were to grant the premise that conservative talk radio can sometimes be crudely simplistic - a tough charge to make stick against, say, onetime philosophy professor Bennett or Clarence Thomas's former law clerk Laura Ingraham - how can anyone plausibly believe the right has a monopoly on misleading argument? Moreover, talk-show fans aren't dummies. Industry surveys show that talk-radio fans vote in greater percentages than the general public, tend to be college educated and read more magazines and newspapers than the average American. Successful talk radio is conservative for three reasons:

? Entertainment value. The top conservative hosts put on snazzy, frequently humorous shows. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, observes: "The parody, the asides, the self-effacing humor, the bluster are all part of the packaging that makes the political message palatable." Besides, the triumph of political correctness on the left makes it hard for on-air liberals to lighten things up without offending anyone.

? Fragmentation of the potential audience. Political consultant Dick Morris explains: "Large percentages of liberals are black and Hispanic, and they now have their own specialized entertainment radio outlets, which they aren't likely to leave for liberal talk radio." The potential audience for Air America or similar ventures is thus pretty small - white liberals, basically. And they've already got NPR.

? Liberal bias in the old media. That's what birthed talk radio in the first place. People turn to it to help right the imbalance. Political scientist William Mayer, writing in The Public Interest, recently observed that liberals don't need talk radio because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers, and NPR.

Unable to prosper in the medium, liberals have taken to denouncing talk radio as a threat to democracy. Liberal political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg, writing in The New Yorker, is typically venomous. Conservative talk radio represents "viscous, untreated political sewage" and "niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive," Hertzberg sneers.

If some liberals had their way, Congress would regulate political talk radio out of existence. Their logic is that scrapping Air America would be no loss if it also meant getting Limbaugh and Bennett and Sean Hannity off the air.

And more:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200504261633.asp

http://www.radiobs.net/thebluestateconservatives/archives/2005/08/more_bad_air_am.html

[reprob8]

Excerpt from:
Why Air America doesn't fly

By Brian C. Anderson

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0421/p09s01-coop.html
So why do liberals fare so poorly on air? Some on the left say it's because liberals are, well, smarter and can't convey their sophisticated ideas to the rubes who listen to talk radio. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, whose own stint as a talk-show host was a ratings disaster, gave canonical expression to this self-serving view. Conservatives "write their messages with crayons," he maintained. "We use fine-point quills."
Yet even if we were to grant the premise that conservative talk radio can sometimes be crudely simplistic - a tough charge to make stick against, say, onetime philosophy professor Bennett or Clarence Thomas's former law clerk Laura Ingraham - how can anyone plausibly believe the right has a monopoly on misleading argument? Moreover, talk-show fans aren't dummies. Industry surveys show that talk-radio fans vote in greater percentages than the general public, tend to be college educated and read more magazines and newspapers than the average American. Successful talk radio is conservative for three reasons:

• Entertainment value. The top conservative hosts put on snazzy, frequently humorous shows. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, observes: "The parody, the asides, the self-effacing humor, the bluster are all part of the packaging that makes the political message palatable." Besides, the triumph of political correctness on the left makes it hard for on-air liberals to lighten things up without offending anyone.

• Fragmentation of the potential audience. Political consultant Dick Morris explains: "Large percentages of liberals are black and Hispanic, and they now have their own specialized entertainment radio outlets, which they aren't likely to leave for liberal talk radio." The potential audience for Air America or similar ventures is thus pretty small - white liberals, basically. And they've already got NPR.

• Liberal bias in the old media. That's what birthed talk radio in the first place. People turn to it to help right the imbalance. Political scientist William Mayer, writing in The Public Interest, recently observed that liberals don't need talk radio because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers, and NPR.

Unable to prosper in the medium, liberals have taken to denouncing talk radio as a threat to democracy. Liberal political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg, writing in The New Yorker, is typically venomous. Conservative talk radio represents "viscous, untreated political sewage" and "niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive," Hertzberg sneers.

If some liberals had their way, Congress would regulate political talk radio out of existence. Their logic is that scrapping Air America would be no loss if it also meant getting Limbaugh and Bennett and Sean Hannity off the air.

And more:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200504261633.asp

http://www.radiobs.net/thebluestateconservatives/archives/2005/08/more_bad_air_am.html


1. The idea that the media has a liberal bias is a shibboleth. If you repeat it often enough, it begins to take on a ring of truth. But repetition does not truth make. Perhaps the media is liberally biased on social issues such as abortion. But that's about the extent of it. When it comes to deeper questions of corporate power and accountability or foreign policy, the claim doesn't hold water. Example: Colin Powell's testimony before the the UN Security Council in February of 2003, in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, was hailed as "masterful" by those bastions of liberal elitism as the NY Times and the Washington Post. Likewise, Kerry's selection of John Edwards was criticized by the likes of those same newspapers due to Edwards' opposition to the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which they viewed as an impediment to further corporate globalization. One has only to look at the advertisement revenue sources to know that these papers, and other commercial periodicals, know on which side their revenue bread is buttered. Couple that with the continuing concentration of media outlets from newspapers, to magazines, to film, and television into fewer and fewer corporate hands, and it is simply a leap of faith to claim that these entities are engaged in some monolithic scheme to promote what you would call a liberal/leftist/socialist agenda. Even Bill Kristol, of the conservative Weekly Standard admitted that the idea of a liberal media was a ruse used by conservatives to hide their own failures. For more examples:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/lm.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/2002/Media_Bias.html


2. I hardly think that a reference to New Orleans Mayor Nagin as "Mayor Nayger" or saying that the White House has a new dog, while holding up a picture of Chelsea Clinton constitutes "self-effacing" humor. Both prior references are attributable to to Mr Excellence in Broadcasting himslef, Rush Limbaugh. Self-effacing humor requires that we laugh at ourselves and our own foibles. Was there ever a time that Mr. Limbaugh had a laugh at his own expense, via-a-vis his self-admitted drug addiction? Was there ever a time Bill Bennett shared a laugh at his own expense with regard to his gambling issues? That's self-effacing humor. We won't delve into Bennett's recent problems with his veiled reference to racial cleansing as form of crime reduction. Talk radio, and its cousin, issues-driven debate formats, such as Crossfire, The Capitol Gang, and The O'rielly Factor offer a great hook and gimmick, but in the end wind up giving off a lot of heat, and very little light. These are not Firing Line with William F. Buckley or the David Susskind Show of yesterday.

3. What birthed talk radio was not so-called media bias, but the elimination of the "fairness doctrine" under the old FCC rules. There's no further need for licensees to give equal time to opposing points of view, which has left us with such screeds as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to propagate their bigotry.

4. It's one thing to claim that talk-radio fans are better educated, tend to vote more often, and read more newspapers than the average American. However, it is a fallacy of composition to then expect that listeners to conservative talk-radio therefore comprise an identical demographic. That demographic may well comprise a larger block of listeners to NPR on a daily basis than to just three hours of Limbaugh a day.

5. The issue is not regulating Limbaugh, Bennett, or Hannity off the air. The issue is allowing for air time for opposing points of view. Otherwise, the loser becomes the American public, which is bombarded with only one point of view. Hardly the foundation upon which the American people can make an informed judgement on matters of public policy.

[andy]

Fair enough, but what are the ratings?

Not sure... probably not to good. From what we heard (from the dealer side) was that it was a poor move on Air America's part as they had a huge audience on Sirius. But they jumped to XM because of the bigger subscriber base (and probably wanted to get away from Howard Stern :biggrin: ) and there were some contract issues that did not allow them to be on both satellite systems.

The questions from the dealer side was:
"Did Air America sell out to try and become the Fox News of the left?" (an actual quote from one of the execs).

[Egyptian]

The issue is allowing for air time for opposing points of view. Otherwise, the loser becomes the American public, which is bombarded with only one point of view. Hardly the foundation upon which the American people can make an informed judgement on matters of public policy.

reprob8,

still comes down to the fact that the American public does not seem to want to listen to the liberal view point on the radio. No one has stopped the liberals from having radio shows, it is just that the ratings do not convince sponsors that they should pay to air those shows.

Egyptian

[reprob8]

Not necessarily so. Take the example of the Tom Leykis show, which was on KFI, Los Angeles back in the early 90's. His show had the highest ratings during the afternoon drive-time, but the station management decided to replace him with of all people former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates. A more recent example would be the Phil Donahue show on MSNBC. His was the highest rated show on MSNBC's evening line-up, but was still cancelled. The reason was later revealed to be the fears of MSNBC's management that his liberal point of view in opposition to the pending invasion of Iraq would prove to be a problem for the fledgling network.

[noodles]

Ed Schultz seems to be doing fairly well. Affiliates are being added regularly!

[Egyptian]

Not necessarily so. Take the example of the Tom Leykis show, which was on KFI, Los Angeles back in the early 90's. His show had the highest ratings during the afternoon drive-time, but the station management decided to replace him with of all people former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates. A more recent example would be the Phil Donahue show on MSNBC. His was the highest rated show on MSNBC's evening line-up, but was still cancelled. The reason was later revealed to be the fears of MSNBC's management that his liberal point of view in opposition to the pending invasion of Iraq would prove to be a problem for the fledgling network.

That is two. How about Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Hannity, Howie Chiesizck (local Akron station) and countless other conservatives. I have not really heard of many liberals in the last 20 years, but plenty of conservativies. And you can believe that it is the sponsors that decide what goes on the air. They pay the bill in spite of the politics of the station management. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Egyptian

[Egyptian]

Ed Schultz seems to be doing fairly well. Affiliates are being added regularly!

Who the hell is Schultz? Never heard of him


Egyptian

[SimGeek]

Who the hell is Schultz? Never heard of him

Egyptian
http://www.wegoted.com/elements/images/index/index2_r2_c3.jpg

http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/ed_schultz_watch/

http://www.democracyradio.org/team

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BCDE1E4EB-AC0F-4241-8390-C4F3D0A2E013%7D&siteid=google&dist=google&cbsReferrer=southdakotapolitics.blogs.com

[reprob8]

That is two. How about Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Hannity, Howie Chiesizck (local Akron station) and countless other conservatives. I have not really heard of many liberals in the last 20 years, but plenty of conservativies. And you can believe that it is the sponsors that decide what goes on the air. They pay the bill in spite of the politics of the station management. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Egyptian


If they pay the bills in spite of station management's politics, then you need to explain what happened to Leykis.

Limbaugh has entertainment value, which more often than not he uses to disguise his own bigotry. It serves I think as an affirmation of many a viewer's own prejudices and latent fears. Savage is in a (low) class all by himself. There's a lot of flash, but all you have is the parroting of conservative, administration, and party talking points. Sort of like Simgeek, but with a little more depth. The same, I might add, applies to people such Paul Begala or James Carville. As much fun as it is to watch Carville go off on a tear, he does little to enlighten. There are moderates out there such as Michael Jackson or Dianne Rehm who are much cerebral, and if I had a choice to listen to two differing viewpoints, and many at time there are more than just two, I'd rather listen to them being explained on Rehm's show before I listen to either Limbaugh or Carville.

And you're right, money talks. Do you honestly think for a minute that someone as entertaining, acerbic, and perseptive as a Gore Vidal could get the underwriting for a talk radio show, from the very corporate masters he skewers? Jim Hightower's radio show was dropped by ABC not long after he criticized Disney's takeover of ABC-Cap Cities. Just one example.

What you like to call far left in this country barely qualifies as a centrist position in most countries of western Europe. In many respects it reminds me of Nazi Germany. The far left, being considered too extreme had to be silenced. Once they were silenced, more moderate voices were considered too extreme, and they then had to be silenced. Once they were silenced, those a little to their right were considered extremist. On it goes until there is only one acceptable range of views, only differing from each other at the margins. Not exactly the the ideal Madison had in mind when he believed that the existence of a diverse collection of factions was the best guarantee for keeping the nation from falling prey to the tyranny of one overwhelming majority.

[Egyptian]

Must be why I listen to Neil Bortz. He more defines my politics than the rest that you mention. I am probably more a libertarian than a conservative, though the conservative vein more reflects my beliefs than the likes of Hillary, Al Gore or Dean. I don't fully supports what Bush has done as far a international relations goes. Seems like the Republicans defined what our international policy should be for a long time. Many hated him, but Nixon was probably the greatest international politician we have ever elected. Though our opinions have been in direct conflict on this board , I actually enjoy the joust.

Egyptian

[guest]

One picture is worth a thousand words.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/f/bullshit_protector_large.jpg

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

[LBLUNTX]

Quote from Repo-Bait,
"Here's cracker for being such a good parrot. Maybe some day an original thought may cross your mind...But it'll need a canteen."

So you think you're an original thinker, Repo-Bait. Then how come most every point you bring up I've read elsewhere. Simply because you can regurgitate Marxist / Communist / Progressive / Democratic party operatives writings, does not make you an original thinker. You do have a talent for journalism (Yet another "ism") that most techies don't have, but calling Simgeek a parrot simply because he honestly shows his sources is simply wrong. Being able to write a coherent dissertation is not a requirement to be a good simtech, but the ability to recognize a problem and utilize the tools necessary to fix them are. That is what Simgeek and other left brainers do. If the tool is a conservative who can state their position better than they can, it is what a good simtech will use, and vice-versa for journalism challenged lefties.

[reprob8]

Quote from Repo-Bait,
"Here's cracker for being such a good parrot. Maybe some day an original thought may cross your mind...But it'll need a canteen."

So you think you're an original thinker, Repo-Bait. Then how come most every point you bring up I've read elsewhere. Simply because you can regurgitate Marxist / Communist / Progressive / Democratic party operatives writings, does not make you an original thinker. You do have a talent for journalism (Yet another "ism") that most techies don't have, but calling Simgeek a parrot simply because he honestly shows his sources is simply wrong. Being able to write a coherent dissertation is not a requirement to be a good simtech, but the ability to recognize a problem and utilize the tools necessary to fix them are. That is what Simgeek and other left brainers do. If the tool is a conservative who can state their position better than they can, it is what a good simtech will use, and vice-versa for journalism challenged lefties.

Gee, you forgot to add pinko/hippie/junkie/freak...Perhaps, there is no such thing as an original thought. But a cut and paste job? Please. You mean to tell you can't distill what you've read and understood into a sentence of you're own words? You didn't have to go to sim tech school for that. That's something you should have learned in your second year of high school. And in case you weren't aware, this section of the forum is not devoted to technical issues. And if I was insulting to our fine-feathered friend, perhaps it's because he has chosen to be so insulting to those he disagrees with.

But if such is what he as a left-brainer does, then maybe it explains why in a battle of wits he appears to be somewhat half armed.

I do give you credit for putting it in your own words.

Sincerely,

Commie
Progressive
Liberal
Democrat
Pinko
Junkie
Hippie
Anarchist
Leftist
Subversive
Traitor

PS: And those are my better qualities.:biggrin:

[LBLUNTX]

Gee Repo-Bait, you use your mouth prettier than a twenty dollar whore.

[freddybone]

.

What you like to call far left in this country barely qualifies as a centrist position in most countries of western Europe. In many respects it reminds me of Nazi Germany.
When I go to Germany I visit with the locals I believe you are mistaken on the centrist statement but our local CNN would have you believe that. Gee it only took you a few posts to get to the nazi calling very unlike you.

[LBLUNTX]

Well put Freddybone. Progressives as well as our media always seem to gloss over the incredible atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the two clowns that have ruled North Korea. Ah the joys of living in a workers paradise.

[reprob8]

Gee Repo-Bait, you use your mouth prettier than a twenty dollar whore.

I'm easy, but I ain't cheap. biggrin:

[reprob8]

When I go to Germany I visit with the locals I believe you are mistaken on the centrist statement but our local CNN would have you believe that. Gee it only took you a few posts to get to the nazi calling very unlike you.

I was refering to generally accepted policies in most of western Europe. Our CNN broadcasts on this side of the don't even mention such a thing. Try advocate a social safety net like you have western Europe, or advocate a thrity-day vacation for all workers in this country and see if the overwhelming majority of lawmakers, pundits, reporters, and editorial boards doesn't relegate you to the "far left loonie bin." In the 80s and 90s the Israeli press was far more critical of Israeli government's settlement practices than our press ever was. The British press has been much more vocal in its opposition to Tony Blair's support and participation in the Iraqi invasion, before, during and after.

It's bogus point to accuse me of name-calling. Go back and read the post. It distinctly says the pattern is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Very unlike you.

If it will make you feel better, I'll add the following qualifier: or any other totalitarian state, religious or secular. Any time a state starts heading in that direction, or comes to assume for itself that it and only it, has a monopoloy on absolute truth, that's what you get; be it the Papacy of Galileo's day, the Taliban of Afghanistan, the dictatorships of Latin America in the 70s and 80s, or the Wahibis of Saudi Arabia to name but a few.

[reprob8]

Well put Freddybone. Progressives as well as our media always seem to gloss over the incredible atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the two clowns that have ruled North Korea. Ah the joys of living in a workers paradise.

Can you show where our mainstream media has put a positive gloss on anything that the five aforementioned individuals have done? Your operative word is "always".

However, I can tell you who went to bat on behalf of the Pol Pot regime at UN, when Vietnam invaded and kicked the Khmer Rouge out of power. The Reagan administration. I can tell you who backed Saddam Hussein, financially and militarily, in the 80s. The Reagan administration. I can tell you who supported the murder of close to 500,000 Timorese by the Indonesian army, which we supported. The Ford and Carter administrations. I can tell who supported the murderous regime of the Shah of Iran. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. I can tell you who supported the murderous regimes of Gautemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, and Argentina. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan admnistrations. So much for spreading the light of freedom and democracy around the world.

Perhaps you haven't read all my posts. To call those regimes you've referenced workers paradise, by which I take you mean socialist/communist, is to make Marx spin in his grave. None of them even come close to the vision Marx had for a socialist state. That last two ruled by the cult of personality. The first two established a political caste system. And the third was a nihilist in many respects.

BTW, the same Saddam Hussein which the Reagan and first Bush administrations so fervently supported up until August of 1990 viewed Stalin as his role model. Think it deterred us in any way from supporting him?

[LBLUNTX]

Dearest Repo-Bait,
To gloss over means to hide or ignore not to place a "positive gloss" on something, but you knew that. Right?
I also see you have many references to our countries clandestine and not so clandestine activities during the Cold War. Well, war is a bitch and our elected leaders did what was necessary to stop the global infection of communism spread by terrorists like your hero Che. Even one communist country south of the border, during the cold war, was too many as proved by Castro's allowing nuclear weapons only 90 miles from our border. Unless of course you like that sort of thing and feel that it's only fair that the commies that swore they would bury us should be allowed to take over more countries near us.
If you think Iran is better off under the Mullahs than they were under the Shah, you are warped.
Finally, Socialism will never work because it requires people to give up all they have and share equally on a national scale. If you believe that will happen, you are also delusional. I ain't shareing squat with you.
P.S. Old proverb: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At least for the time being.

All my love,
LBLUNTX

[guest]

Isn't western Europe rather socialist?

As much as we are capitalist anyways.

It appears to be working there.

[LBLUNTX]

Guest,
They are indeed the modern definition of socialism, sort of a cradle to grave big nanny state. That however is not the Marxist ideal. Also note that in Germany the government is trying to lower the voting age to ~16 simply to have enough votes to lower the retirement pay promised to retired folk that will soon bankrupt the country. Currently if they try to change the retirement package, the older people vote them out of office. It must be admitted that it is a dandy package, but unfortunatly unaffordable. Also those month long vacations and 4 day work weeks have driven down productivity. Why do you think a VW costs so much. Double digit unemplyment is also a large problem, and taxes are ferocious, compared to ours.

[guest]

As apposed to the U.S. borrowing Billions of Dollars to fund wars and funneling it to the industrial might so we don't have to raise taxes to support the industrial war machines,

Get real, our debt ratio per capita far outreaches any third world social programs when it comes supporting our big business welfare state. A trickle down theory gone wild. When we go belly up the whole world will suffer

[LBLUNTX]

Guest,
Actually our government manages to borrow trillions of dollars even when we're not in war, probably because our politicians have found they can buy our votes by distributing wealth from the treasury, either directly, such as welfare or by jobs programs, i.e. building roads, bridges, public facilities, and research projects. Some of these things are useful, others a plain waste of money. And yes I am disappointed by the Republicans forgetting their contract with America, actually I'm really pissed, but the alternative is worse, IMHO.
I don't think I would call European nations third worlders. Even though they are in debit up to their buttocks, the same as us or worse when comparing GDPs. My 2 cents (adjusted for inflation of course).

[the jackal]

Guest,
Actually our government manages to borrow trillions of dollars even when we're not in war, probably because our politicians have found they can buy our votes by distributing wealth from the treasury, either directly, such as welfare or by jobs programs, i.e. building roads, bridges, public facilities, and research projects. Some of these things are useful, others a plain waste of money. And yes I am disappointed by the Republicans forgetting their contract with America, actually I'm really pissed, but the alternative is worse, IMHO.
I don't think I would call European nations third worlders. Even though they are in debit up to their buttocks, the same as us or worse when comparing GDPs. My 2 cents (adjusted for inflation of course).

The borrowing of money has never been as bad as it is right now. Republican or Democrat, one should be very concerned about just how much the US is in debt. Especially when some of our largest T-bill owners are countries like China and Japan.

The national debt is approximately $7.8 trillion, i.e. $7,800,000,000,000. This is more than ten times the amount of US currency that is in circulation as of 2005.

In short, the USA is currently surviving on borrowed money, and a lot of it. The time will come where this foolishness will come back and bite us. If you don't think this to be the case then I suggest you do a bit more reading. This sort of trend only inflates an unstable economy.

Unfortunately, it will take years to repair the cascade effect once it starts. Once the oil market starts trading in Euros, which is already in the works, the US dollar will shrink in the world market and countries will start calling in their marks. Once that starts, you have runaway inflation, a rise in interest rates, and increases in bankruptcy as assets are called in, to increase the flow of cash to offshore buyers. One way to hedge this is to also increase the flow of goods, but our great leader has already allowed too much to be outsourced to consider this.

[reprob8]

Dearest Repo-Bait,
To gloss over means to hide or ignore not to place a "positive gloss" on something, but you knew that. Right?
I also see you have many references to our countries clandestine and not so clandestine activities during the Cold War. Well, war is a bitch and our elected leaders did what was necessary to stop the global infection of communism spread by terrorists like your hero Che. Even one communist country south of the border, during the cold war, was too many as proved by Castro's allowing nuclear weapons only 90 miles from our border. Unless of course you like that sort of thing and feel that it's only fair that the commies that swore they would bury us should be allowed to take over more countries near us.
If you think Iran is better off under the Mullahs than they were under the Shah, you are warped.
Finally, Socialism will never work because it requires people to give up all they have and share equally on a national scale. If you believe that will happen, you are also delusional. I ain't shareing squat with you.
P.S. Old proverb: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At least for the time being.

All my love,
LBLUNTX


Esteemed LBLUNTX:

How right you are on that first point, and I stand corrected. Be that as it may, you would still be very hard presed to substantiate your point. I know I haven't read it in the so-called left/liberal press; not about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge; not about Kim Il Sung and his progeny with the bad hairdo, Kim Jong Il; and it certainly didn't gloss over what was happening in the Soviet Union. If anything, our mainstream press, movies, television, and even Madison Avenue reflected and nurtured our collective - no pun intended - perceptions about the Soviet Union and communism in general. Or have you forgotten the anti-communist hysteria of the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s where so many lives and careers were destroyed. Perhaps you forget that in the 60s some of our leaders, with the approval of many in the mainstream press, were urging a rapproachment with the Soviet Union because Mao and the People's Republic of China was considered such a threat. Otherwise, you need to explain such movies as the Manchurian Candidate, Red Dawn, and of course Rambo. It was only a few years before the introduction of glasnost and perestroika to our lexicon that Wendy's ran a commercial set at a fashion show in what we can only surmise was the Soviet Union. The runway model was portrayed as frumpy and humorless, and all the fashions were the same, be they daytime, afternoon, or evening wear - the only exception being that evening wear came with a flashlight.

Now on to the Missiles of October. True, there were missiles positioned a mere 90 miles from our shores. Do you forget that during that period we had missiles positioned in Turkey and aimed at the Soviet Union? Do you forget that the US government had already launched one, albeit failed, invasion against Cuba, and there was still some serious thought being given towards launching another invasion? Do you forget that there had already been several assasination attempts against Castro? Do you forget that historically it has been the habit of the US governement to send troops into any Latin American country it damn well felt like? Such a pattern of behaviors is not going to leave someone like Castro with a warm and fuzzy feeling about the US and its intentions. I'm not advocating the placing of Soviet missiles on that island, but sometimes you have to understand the other side's perspective on a situation.

Perhaps you weren't aware that in 1917 the US participated in an invasion of Russia in order to overthrow the newly established Bolshevik state. A little reading will inform you that its western border has historically been Russia's soft underbelly, from the Napolean, to the Crimean War, to Hitler's breaking of his non-agression pact with Stalin. You perhaps did not know that Russia is estimated to have lost somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million people in World War II. So it is certainly understandable, though not necessarily excusable, as to why the Soviet Union would have resorted to establishing a ring of client states along its western frontier; sort of a Monroe Doctrine with an eastern European flavor.

Not all movements for national self determination, or a more democratic opening of society, resort to armed struggle from the first moment. More often than not armed struggle is a last resort when all other measures have been exhausted, through suppression, assasination, or extermination of a disaffected populace. You need only look at what happened with France and her colonies in Algeria and Indo-China. The same applies to El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Heck, you only have to look as close as our own country in the late 18th Century. Nor are all such movements grounded in a particular ideology. True, the Soviet Union made a very public point of endorsing all movements for national independence. But then again, it's not like France, Belgium, England, and the US had a very stellar record as colonial powers. If your own colonial masters are opressing you, you're going to go anywhere you can for help in establishing your independence. Again we did the same thing in the late 18th Century. I doubt that you're ready to call them Marxists or communists. And just because those in power, the US government, or you say thay're communists, does not make it so. You forget that Ho Chi Minh declaration of independence was lifted almost word for word from our own. He sought an audience with Woodorw Wilson in 1919, looking for US help in helping him expell the French from Vietnam. And as has happened so often, all someone has to say is "communism!" and we're rushing in all sorts of military supplies and advisors, bringing an economy of scale to their repressive measures.

Iran may not be better off with the Mullahs, but you miss the point. The end result was due to our own hubris and denial of the obvious. Look at what happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's what your pithy little aphorism about the enemy of your enemy gets you. That's was Reagan's justification for opening the supply spigot for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The principle may work well in extreme cases of national survival,such as Worl War II, but it's a poor foundation for the conduct of foreign policy. But even if we allow you that point, please explain the following:

- of what threat to us were the people of East Timor that we supported the extermination of close to 500,000 by the Indonesian Army?
- of what threat to us was the legally elected president of a foreign state such as Chile?
- of what greater threat to us was Vietnam that we resorted to supporting Pol Pot at the UN?

If you wish to bring up the subject of terrorism, I suggest you make an effort to define it first. Be that as it may, as dismal as Castro's human rights record amy be, it pales in comparison to the human rights record of El Salvador, Guatemala, the Samozas' Nicaragua, the Duvaliers' Haiti, and Pinochet's Chile during the 70s and 80s.

The idea that socialism requires everyone give what they have is a little too trite, since it ignores the motivating factors which Marx expected. Marx expected an alienated, and disenfranchised working class with nothing to call its own except for its labor, which was sold to the capitalist class. You can't share what you ain't got.

Love and kisses to you too, comrade.

[Egyptian]

A little reading will inform you that its western border has historically been Russia's soft underbelly, from the Napolean, to the Crimean War, to Hitler's breaking of his non-agression pact with Stalin. You perhaps did not know that Russia is estimated to have lost somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million people in World War II. So it is certainly understandable, though not necessarily excusable, as to why the Soviet Union would have resorted to establishing a ring of client states along its western frontier; sort of a Monroe Doctrine with an eastern European flavor.


To correct you on the number of Russians killed, according to my wife, a native born Russian, it was more like 30 million people killed buy the Nazis. And as for you reference to the Wendys ad, most Russians who saw that were truly offended by it. Have spent a couple of months in Russia (both in Moscow and out in Sibera), I can assure you, I saw no one dressed like that. In fact, most Russian women are extremely well dressed and damn good looking.

Egyptian

[reprob8]

Egyptian:

I heard as high as high as 30 million too, but decided to low-ball it lest I be accused of exaggerating.

I would be surprised if the Russians did not find the ad offensive. In my own perverse way, I found it humorous. But it also illustrates that we need to do a personal check on ourselves and our own agents of influence.

[LBLUNTX]

(Insert your own term of endearment here) Repo-Bait,
You sorta missed my point about the medias glossing over the Communist monsters. Whenever the media, in general, want to compare someone they dislike to a past mass murderer, they ALMOST always use Hitler as their comparison (true he is rotting in the hottest part of Hell, along with lawyers from the ALCU and SPLC), but they ALMOST never bring up his bunkmates the Communist monsters already listed. When was the last time you heard Bush being compared to the North Korean Bad hairdo twinkie who actually has sunk his countries economy due to his military expeditures. (I hope you don't try and support his build up as simply a need to keep the reactionary South from taking over his poor impoverished workers paradise.) Anyway, that was the point I was trying to make.
Next the missiles of October. Yes I knew about the Nuclear tipped Redstone missiles we had in Turkey and your point is what? We hadn't threatened to bury them, we wern't trying to spread an extremely oppressive form of government around the world. Just whose side are you on anyway, or maybe you're just not old enough to remember the fallout shelters in most towns and the school kids going through nuclear attack drills, I was there, and I won't forget.
As for all those other hot spots during the Cold War, as I said war is a bitch and if the Russians and the Cubans had not attempted to to surroud us with Communist sattellite states we wouldn't have had get involved in all those sensless brutalities. But as we learned in school, if you don't kick the bully in the Balls, he'll never leave you alone.
I do feel sorry for the Russian people. They are getting their first real shot at something resembling freedom. During the Czarest rule and then under the Communists they were regularly killed by the French and then by the Germans. They were also kept poorer than church mice under both lousy forms of government. No winning there.
I'm sure the Eastern Europens appeciated being a buffer zone between the Communists and the evil West. Of course that meant we had to spend vast sums of money making sure the poor frightened Russians didn't extend their buffer zone to the Azores, but they would have done it only because they were frightened, right.
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO,
L(don't call me comrade)BLUNTX

[reprob8]

(Insert your own term of endearment here) Repo-Bait,
You sorta missed my point about the medias glossing over the Communist monsters. Whenever the media, in general, want to compare someone they dislike to a past mass murderer, they ALMOST always use Hitler as their comparison (true he is rotting in the hottest part of Hell, along with lawyers from the ALCU and SPLC), but they ALMOST never bring up his bunkmates the Communist monsters already listed. When was the last time you heard Bush being compared to the North Korean Bad hairdo twinkie who actually has sunk his countries economy due to his military expeditures. (I hope you don't try and support his build up as simply a need to keep the reactionary South from taking over his poor impoverished workers paradise.) Anyway, that was the point I was trying to make.
Next the missiles of October. Yes I knew about the Nuclear tipped Redstone missiles we had in Turkey and your point is what? We hadn't threatened to bury them, we wern't trying to spread an extremely oppressive form of government around the world. Just whose side are you on anyway, or maybe you're just not old enough to remember the fallout shelters in most towns and the school kids going through nuclear attack drills, I was there, and I won't forget.
As for all those other hot spots during the Cold War, as I said war is a bitch and if the Russians and the Cubans had not attempted to to surroud us with Communist sattellite states we wouldn't have had get involved in all those sensless brutalities. But as we learned in school, if you don't kick the bully in the Balls, he'll never leave you alone.
I do feel sorry for the Russian people. They are getting their first real shot at something resembling freedom. During the Czarest rule and then under the Communists they were regularly killed by the French and then by the Germans. They were also kept poorer than church mice under both lousy forms of government. No winning there.
I'm sure the Eastern Europens appeciated being a buffer zone between the Communists and the evil West. Of course that meant we had to spend vast sums of money making sure the poor frightened Russians didn't extend their buffer zone to the Azores, but they would have done it only because they were frightened, right.
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO,
L(don't call me comrade)BLUNTX


Dear Imperialist Running-Dog Jackal...Nah, I think this has a better ring:

Dear Comrade LBLUNTX: biggrin:

Perhaps it is because Hitler was in a unique class to himself as a madman. Hitler's was an ideology driven by hate and further expansion for his master race. True, that millions died during Stalin's forced industrialization and collectivist programs, but at least it can be said that it was in pursuit of a higher social goal. Now you can argue that the end does not justify the means, and you would be right. But the instant you do so, you lose any and all moral footing for your claim that our leaders had to do what was necessary "to stop the global infection of communism." You cannot claim that means of your opponent are abhorent, if you yourself employ them. But if you persist, then you must be prepared to excoriate our own government for what it did to native Americans and blacks, to name just two, in its westward expansion. What happened in the Soviet Union during that period is no different than what happened here, except that the time scale was compressed.

Back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. During that period the Soviet Union didn't even have fifty bombers and missiles that could hit the US. We had over 500. Yet Kennedy ran on the claim, meant to frighten the electorate into voting for him, that there was a "missile gap" between the Soviet Union and ourselves. You forget that there existed in this country a climate of fear about communism going back decades before the Cold War began, before the fall of the Csar in 1917. At the end of World War II the Soviet Union was an economic and military basket case. Our intelligence estimates, including an analysis by George Kennan (famous for his "long telegram") came to that conclusion. In addition you have the paranoid personality of a Joseph Stalin as verified by Kruschev himself when he came to power subsequent to the former's death. At the time, there began a gradual relaxation of Soviet Union's repressive state measures. During the same period in our country there was the realization that there was money to be made from an economy organized around a permanent war footing. Of course you cannot justify such outlays for weapons programs without first identifying an enemy against whom they may be needed. Sprinkle in some hysteria about a subversive menace, encourage the purchase of fallout shelters for your family, add in some duck-and-cover drills, and viola! We're on a permanent war footing. Ever stop to think that Kruschev may have been speaking metaphorically? If I tell you I'm going to kick you ass in a game of cards, does that mean I'm literally going to kick your ass?

War indeed is hell, to say the least. And it is a tragic fact that in modern warfare civilians will wind up being disproportionate victims of the fighting. However, there is a vast difference between being caught in the crossfire, and being deliberately put in the crosshairs. And you have yet to offer one iota of proof that East Timor was a client state of the Soviet Union or Cuba. You have to offer a shred of proof that any other country I mentioned was a client state of the Soviet Union. What you make is an assertion masquerading as fact a best, and a very lame excuse for dismissing our own complicity in such human rights abuses at worst. Again, how much of a greater threat to our security were the Khmer Rouge vis-a-vis Vietnam that we felt compelled to support them as the legimate rulers of Cambodia? What threat did the legally elected government of one of the most civilized nations in South America pose? What threat do four Catholic lay workers pose that we allow the Salvadoran military to rape them and then murder them? What threat did the arch-bishop of San Salvador pose to us that we wined and dined the person who ordered his assasination? Do you not find it rather ironic that many on the right are quick to accuse those on the left of paranoid conspiracy theories, while at same claiming with little or no provocation, little or no proof, that there was a communist conspiracy afoot at the sign of the slightest social unrest? Martin Luther King Jnr. was branded as communist, as was Robert Oppenhiemer, and even Albert Einstein. And even if we grant you that some form of repression was necessary to prevent the greater evil of communism, then it becomes necessary for you to establish a much greater extreme of repression in the Soviet Block countries. In 1981 death squads allied with the military and oligarchy of El Salvador were credited with literally murdering 12,000 people, trade unionists, newspaper publishers, priests, disidents, etc. Show where in a similar period any so-called client state of the Soviet Union accomplished the same thing. The Guatemalan government exterminated somewhere in the range of 100,000 in a four-year period from from 1979 to 1983. Show me how much more worse Cuba was that we can justify such an action.

I'm sure the people of the Warsaw Pact nations were no more enamored of being client states of the Soviet Union than the peoples of Latin America are of having the US throw its military weight around in their region. And we've been at it longer than Russia.

Enlighten me if you will, but do you have a certain affinity for Nazis, racist skinheads, or the KKK? Do you have a particular distaste for our Bill of Rights? I ask because of your vitriolic critique of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). After all, you were the one who said, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Just curious.

Affectionately,

Reprob8

[LBLUNTX]

Dearest Bourgeois Repo-Bait,
According to an old Navy Seal I worked for, "if you play fair with the enemy, you will lose" (Sorry John I didn't mean to call you old, don't hurt me). The former Soviet Union claimed to be our enemy and acted like our enemy. We had the Bomb after WWII and could have destroyed them, but we didn't proving we were not their enemy. But as you say the loony toons Stalin persisted in his drive for Global domination. That was one of the joys of the cold war years, wondering who the next nut case Soviet leader would be.
You know, if you gave "W" as much slack as you have given to the Soviets, and Communists in general, You would be singing his praises to the rafters. After all his policies haven't killed tens of millions of americans, have they.
As I remember East Timor, like Ruwanda, was supposed to be handled by the U.N., which is one of those global bodies that plays nice with madmen so that no one will think badly of It. And what was the outcome of playing nice, slaughter. Do you really think our government solicited all those killings? If you could stop a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao before they become strong, even if you would look bad to the French and Germans, would it be worth it?
In playing cards I might let a remark like "Imo kick you ass" go by, but as POTUS I can't take that chance. Further, if you think only 49 nuclear bombs going off in America is not to be feared, but you were only making a point in favor of the Russians, right?
Please note my previous post noting where Hitlers current digs are. The Nazis would have sent me to the gas chambers, the KKK as well as the Skinheads would hate my ideology and theology.
As for the Bill of Rights, the ALCU and SPLC and I disagree on the INTERPRETATION of the Bill of Rights. Such as, the seperation of church and state does not appear there. It popped up in a 1949 Supreme Court decision. IMHO it was as well thought out as the Dred Scott decision. Also I believe that a person should only have to be Marandised once, there is no reason a career criminal should be let off because he wasn't properly Marandised for the 5th time. I have more examples if you would like.

XOXOXOXOXOXO

"All I know is I am not a Marxist" LBLUNTX

[reprob8]

Dearest Bourgeois Repo-Bait,
According to an old Navy Seal I worked for, "if you play fair with the enemy, you will lose" (Sorry John I didn't mean to call you old, don't hurt me). The former Soviet Union claimed to be our enemy and acted like our enemy. We had the Bomb after WWII and could have destroyed them, but we didn't proving we were not their enemy. But as you say the loony toons Stalin persisted in his drive for Global domination. That was one of the joys of the cold war years, wondering who the next nut case Soviet leader would be.
You know, if you gave "W" as much slack as you have given to the Soviets, and Communists in general, You would be singing his praises to the rafters. After all his policies haven't killed tens of millions of americans, have they.
As I remember East Timor, like Ruwanda, was supposed to be handled by the U.N., which is one of those global bodies that plays nice with madmen so that no one will think badly of It. And what was the outcome of playing nice, slaughter. Do you really think our government solicited all those killings? If you could stop a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao before they become strong, even if you would look bad to the French and Germans, would it be worth it?
In playing cards I might let a remark like "Imo kick you ass" go by, but as POTUS I can't take that chance. Further, if you think only 49 nuclear bombs going off in America is not to be feared, but you were only making a point in favor of the Russians, right?
Please note my previous post noting where Hitlers current digs are. The Nazis would have sent me to the gas chambers, the KKK as well as the Skinheads would hate my ideology and theology.
As for the Bill of Rights, the ALCU and SPLC and I disagree on the INTERPRETATION of the Bill of Rights. Such as, the seperation of church and state does not appear there. It popped up in a 1949 Supreme Court decision. IMHO it was as well thought out as the Dred Scott decision. Also I believe that a person should only have to be Marandised once, there is no reason a career criminal should be let off because he wasn't properly Marandised for the 5th time. I have more examples if you would like.

XOXOXOXOXOXO

"All I know is I am not a Marxist" LBLUNTX

Comrade LBLUNTX:

You quoted Marx in your closing. Very good.

You don't necessarily have to play fair with your enemy. But it is indeed helpful to understand their national ethos and perspectives. Nowhere is this more true than in such trite observations that the cockroaches that attacked us on 9-11 did so because they hated our freedoms and way of life. I don't think Osama gave a rat's ass about our way of life. It would appear that what aroused his hatred was the positioning of "infidel" troops on what he considered Islamic holy land. That and our unequivical support for the state of Israel. Not an excuse for his actions, but another perspective on his motives. Applying that to the Soviet Union, you have a pattern of hostility between Russia and the UK that pre-dates the1917 revolution. Not long after the Bolshevick Revolution, the US participated in an invasion of Russia. During WW II, for almost three years, while millions of Russians were dying, Stalin kept calling for the opening of a second front in Europe. When Italy fell, he was frozen out of the terms of surrender. Take a country that has historically been attacked from the west, that just lost 30 million people, that was still suspicious of western intention, then take a western power that used Nazi war criminals (Klaus Barbie) for intelligence gathering on suspected socialists in exchange for safe passage to South America, add a manic-depressive and paranoid leader, and the last thing you want to do is confirm those fears. Where an astute observer like George Kennan advocated containment, our overt foreign policy was committed to roll-back.

On our side, our politicians resorted to an internal propaganda war directed at the American public, intended to keep us scared, suspicious of one another, and sufficiently cowed that we acquiesced to any action they took, however ill-conceived, false, or blatantly outlandish. Only one of those fifty bombers or missiles would have caused us untold damage and human misery. I use that example of the missile gap to highlight the fact of how our politicians used these distortions for their own ends. It didn't matter whether they were Democrat or Republican. Both were beholden to economic power. And both were not above using the red scare as an issue to gain and hold political power, even to the point of supporting our set of repressive measures and supporting some of the most corrupt, despotic, and repressive of political regimes abroad.

I do not give the Soviet Union as much slack as you may think. I understand the reasons for its conduct. That doesn't mean I excuse it. As for W, the first prerequisite for me singing any president's praises is that he be fluent in at least one language. Beyond that, he has lied us into an unjustifiable war, for which he merits impeachment, removal from office, and possible criminal prosecution. To quote Arianna Huffington, "If that's restoring honor and integrity to the White House, let's bring back Oval Office blow jobs."

You are about 25 years off on your comment regarding East Timor. Those 200,000 were killed when the Indonesian Army invaded in December of 1975. Ford and Kissinger had just left Jakarta for Hawaii. Think Suharto would have attempted such a feat without a wink and a nod from Hank and his monkey? Subsequent to that, despite reports of what the Indonesian Army was doing, we continued to supply them with weapons with which to continue their reign of terror. Still waiting for an answer on Chile, El Salvador, Haiti, the Khmer Rouge...

You've answered my question on the ACLU. And though there is no explicit mention in the Constitution, one can be clearly inferred in the establishment clause. (if you can, please cite your 1949 case and the Miranda case as well). However, if we follow your train of thought, neither is there any mention of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the printing of paper money, substantive due process, or about a corporation having almost all the same rights as a natural human being. But you still fail to answer the question relating to the SPLC. Their concern is not with civil liberties, but with civil rights, the teaching of tolerance, and maintaining a watchful eye on hate groups. I would think that you would support any organization that strives to hold such odious groups in check. You know, by any means necessary; the enemy of my enemy...


XOXOXO
Reprob8

[Solo]

Reprob8,

As another who disagreed with our going to Iraq in the first place, let me (Libertarian, for the record) also say -

1- Don't look for anyone presently in the government's adherence to constitutional guidelines in their conduct; and
2- "Does this guy know how to party or what!"

[reprob8]

Haven't found anyone in our government past or present that actually took their oath of office seriously.

The guy can party...But it's been on our dime in so many ways.

[LBLUNTX]

Useful Idiot Repo-Bait,

I can't believe an astute fellow as yourself has bought Osama's big lie that the only reason he attacked us was we were on hallowed ground. He and quite a few fellow Moslem nut cases believe he is the Mahdi, the Islamic saviour who will defeat the West and bring Peace to the world by spreading Islam and Sharia Law to the whole world, in the classic Moslem way by placing their foot on your neck, raising a scimitar, and asking if you would like to become an Islamic believer. He knows if the U.S. and europe fall, the rest of the world is a push over. He also knows that if he sets off a couple of nukes in America and Europe, the fat westerner's governments will give in, or so He thinks. I don't think so, but as long as He and his followers do, He is a world class danger.
I was in Germany, protecting the Europeans, and us, from the Red Menace in the mid seventies with only AFRTS and the Stars and Stripes to get my news from, so I missed the original dust up in East Timor. I did read the documents, on the internet, that you were referring to in your last post . The synopsis's given by the posters didn't quite match with the documents, a bit of left spin on the ball, but it did show that our government was still trying to protect us and the world from the spread of the Communist menace.
As for your other requests, nothing will satisfy you. You will continue to cry about the loss of 100's of thousands lives in stopping the spread of the workers revolts and I will continue to cry for the 10's of millions of lives lost to the stupidity of the communist way and it's leaders/Dictators for life. One more thing, just as Che is your hero, Pinochet is one of mine. He knew how to rid his country of Communists.
I was wrong it was a 1947 SCOTUS decree, Emerson vs. board of education. How you get a wall of separation from " CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.", I'll never understand. Miranda vs. Arizona 1966, also something called the staleness doctrine applies if the a suspect is questioned by different police agencies about the same or different crimes.
Finally, a few quotes from Marx himself:
" The theory of the Communists can be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property."
" A spector is haunting Europe - the spector of Communism." ( I don't think He was talking about Phil)
" Go on, get out. Last words are for fools who haven't said enough."

XOXOXOXOXOXO
LBLUNTX

[reprob8]

Useful Idiot Repo-Bait,

I can't believe an astute fellow as yourself has bought Osama's big lie that the only reason he attacked us was we were on hallowed ground. He and quite a few fellow Moslem nut cases believe he is the Mahdi, the Islamic saviour who will defeat the West and bring Peace to the world by spreading Islam and Sharia Law to the whole world, in the classic Moslem way by placing their foot on your neck, raising a scimitar, and asking if you would like to become an Islamic believer. He knows if the U.S. and europe fall, the rest of the world is a push over. He also knows that if he sets off a couple of nukes in America and Europe, the fat westerner's governments will give in, or so He thinks. I don't think so, but as long as He and his followers do, He is a world class danger.
I was in Germany, protecting the Europeans, and us, from the Red Menace in the mid seventies with only AFRTS and the Stars and Stripes to get my news from, so I missed the original dust up in East Timor. I did read the documents, on the internet, that you were referring to in your last post . The synopsis's given by the posters didn't quite match with the documents, a bit of left spin on the ball, but it did show that our government was still trying to protect us and the world from the spread of the Communist menace.
As for your other requests, nothing will satisfy you. You will continue to cry about the loss of 100's of thousands lives in stopping the spread of the workers revolts and I will continue to cry for the 10's of millions of lives lost to the stupidity of the communist way and it's leaders/Dictators for life. One more thing, just as Che is your hero, Pinochet is one of mine. He knew how to rid his country of Communists.
I was wrong it was a 1947 SCOTUS decree, Emerson vs. board of education. How you get a wall of separation from " CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.", I'll never understand. Miranda vs. Arizona 1966, also something called the staleness doctrine applies if the a suspect is questioned by different police agencies about the same or different crimes.
Finally, a few quotes from Marx himself:
" The theory of the Communists can be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property."
" A spector is haunting Europe - the spector of Communism." ( I don't think He was talking about Phil)
" Go on, get out. Last words are for fools who haven't said enough."

XOXOXOXOXOXO
LBLUNTX

Osama is in deed a world class danger. But you couldn't prove that by the this administrations actions in pursuit of same. Or have you forgotten Mr. Bush's remarks in refernce to Osama, effectively labeling him irrelevant. The man was the mastermind behind the mass murder of over 3,000 people on US soil, and he's irrelevant? But he is a virulant anti-communist. So I'm sure you have more in common with him, than you with me, or him with me. I don't particularly care for religous fundamentalism of any stripe, Christian, Judeo, or Islamic. In case you're not aware, we have our mullahs in this country, and just because they say they're Christian and anti-communist does not make them less of a threat to us than Osama himself. There's even one here who proclaims himself as the second coming of Christ, the Reverend Moon of the Unification Church, and owner of the Washington Times. But how can he be a threat. He's a rabid anti-communist too. What's that old saying, My Friend? Birds of a feather...

By your logic, the mere utterance, the mere words in print, the mere demonstration against the government of a client state, requires only the charge of communist subversion to legitimate the wholesale slaughter of people, the elderly, children, infants, and clergy. The mere threat of ex-communication by an arch-bishop against the military for daring to kill the civilian population is suffcient grounds for his assasination. A critical editorial against a government's repressive measures is sufficient grounds for the wholeale murder of publishers, and shutdown of a free press. No warrants required, no trial, no legal representation. Just pick up the the perpetrator in the middle of the night, torture him/her, kill him/her, mutilate his/her body, and then dump it in his/her neighborhood as a warning to others who dare to speak out. Self determination is to be decided not by a peope, but by us. Is this the American ideal of freedom and democracy that you preach? Everyone has a right to be free, but we'll be the final arbitor of who gets to execise it. Is this not the same as that which you claim to fight against? Martin Luther King Jnr. was branded a communist by the likes of Jesse Helms, himslef a rabid anti-communist. Was his assasination also warranted and justified? Who is to make that determination? Who is to say that cancer of communism itself has been fully excised? How can we be sure if once what you deem the radical left has been silenced, someone then decides that those of a more moderate bent, may not also be considered fair game, since they now occupy the extreme left, requiring their extermination too? Are we not now to stepping into a "looking glass" world where it matters not who is right, but who shall be boss? Where does it end?

Still left unanswered is my question in regard to the SPLC. Still waiting for you to square that other circle: Granted that there is no specific mention of a separation between church and state (suggest you read Madison's "Memorial & Remonstrance"), neither is there a specific mention about substantive due process, sovereign immunity, the printing of paper money, or a corporation having the almost the same rights as a natural human being.

[freddybone]

It is my opinion that Morris Dees is a huckster of Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart proportions. All do some good work but all are just after your money. There are alot better Civil rights organizations to give your money to.

[LBLUNTX]

Dearest useful idiot Repo-Bait,

SPLC- just another group of Lawyers looking to get rich by extorting money from the people via the Courts. Happy now?
Amazingly enough, Martin Luther King is another of my heros, (since you brought his name up),probably right at the top, among humans. His way of handling the racist southern Democrats by non-violent protest was working extremely well and would not have left the country so divided as the Jessie Jackson and his crowds 'in your face" tactics. The bastard that killed him changed the course of racial politics to this day. Martin was a cross between Jesus, Fredrick Douglass and Ghandi, Jessie and his ilk are strictly about revenge and what's in it for Me. IMHO. (Of course He is old enough to have had to ride in the back of the bus, so I do understand, but do not condone).
So why didn't we use non-violent protests to stop Communism? Glad you asked. Because Commies don't respond to non-violent protest, see Tianimen Square. They can only be rooted out by the gun. What a shame they don't respond to public pressure, or have to worry about being voted out every 2,4,or 6 years. Just think, only 3 more years and you can vote for the next political savior and have yet another politico to bitch about. Even better, when you retire, you can bitch full time.
Of course the reality is that most wars are fought over real estate, location, location, location. And many Impotentates use religion or ideology as the excuse for coveting other peoples land. Having said that, I'd still rather go down shooting that live under a Communist dictatorship.
Of course if the revolution were to come to America, You think you'd be one of the Commissars, right.

XOXOXOXOXOXO
Lovingly,
LBLUNTX

P.S. Do you have any redeeming qualities, like you know, torturing small mammals for fun and profit, or even chaining yourself to trees in pulp wood lots? Just curious.

[LBLUNTX]

Nice going Freddybone. Couldn't and didn't say it any better.

[reprob8]

It would seem like a small price to pay, the SPLC's huckersim, for the assurance that they're going after a greater enemy, racists. I didn't doubt for a second your sincere opprobrium towards hate groups. I just wanted to highlight the fallacy of your initial statement, that the enemy of your enemy, yadda, yadda, yadda. That kind of logic is best left to middle school playgrounds. However, bear in mind that that same logic was applied by what I assume to be oneof your own heroes, Ronald Reagan, when he opened the spending spigot and began pouring money into the Mujahedeen's guerilla struggle against Soviet troops in Afghanistan. If I recall correctly, those are the exact words he used. On September 11 of 2001 that enemy of your enemy came home to roost.

You'll have to take up the issue of Tianeman Square with George Bush Snr. and Brent Scowcroft. They're the one that made the political outreach to the Chinese government a year after. Ask yourself who granted them MFN status. Ask yourself who who's floating the money for the huge budget deficits and national debt we've racked over the past five years.

Dr King was branded a communist by Jesse Helms and J. Edgar Hoover. Have you ever heard the speech he gave one year before his death, opposing the Vietnam War, and questioning the motives behind our own foreign policy, you can find a transcript of his speech online, given at New York's Riverside Church in April of 1967. Many in the progressive community of this country believe that that is the speech which marked him for assasination. Applying your logic of the need to eradicate communism at every step of the way, one would think that you would find it acceptable to have him removed. Isn't that your logic, that communism and those associated with it must be exterminated. People used non-violent protests in El Salvador in 1978, when their elections were stolen via outright fraud. The police opened fire on them. People used non-violent protests against the government of Guatemala for decades, only to have their leaders disappeared. Both governments claimed to be anti-communist. It's your logic, sir, not mine. Chile was not a communist dictatorship under Salvador Allende. It was Nixon and Kissinger who destabalized its economy and instigated the coup and subsequent rein of terror under Pinochet. All because Allende proved that people could actually choose a marxist for president despite all the BS that the only way one could rise to power was via violence. Anyone who doubts my word need only find the relevant documents online at the National Security Archives, or read some of the country reports from Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International from the 1980s.

If the revolution came to America, it would still have to honor the principles of political freedom, espoused by Madison, Williams, and Jefferson for it to have my support. Anything short of that is unacceptable.

Now can you tell me where exactly I may find a specific reference to to the following in our constitution:

- doctrine of sovereign immunity
- printing of paper money
- substantive due process
- corporations have almost all the same rights as a natural human being

Don't bother. You won't find it, much less infer it. But they're accepted principles of constitutional jurisprudence. That's why it's easier to infer a wall of separation between church and state in the establishment clause than anything that can be inferred to support the four doctrines mentioned above.

And what do you do for fun? Canoe trips in South Georgia with the fellas?