Ever read a comment by one of the trolls in HA’s threads, and wonder if the author is brain damaged? Well, apparently….
The differences between liberals and conservatives may run deeper than how they feel about welfare reform or the progress of the Iraq war: Researchers reported Sunday that their brains may actually work differently.
In a study likely to raise the hackles of some conservatives, scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that a specific region of the brain’s cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.
The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.
“Say you drive home from work the same way every day, but one day there’s a detour and you need to override your autopilot,” said NYU psychologist David Amodio. “Most people function just fine. But there’s a little variability in how sensitive people are to the cue that they need to change their current course.”
The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.
Of course the study evoked outrage from conservative pundits… what do you expect from folks who are so rigid, closed-minded, fearful, aggressive, and less tolerant of ambiguity and new experiences? But not to worry, just like with evolution and climate change, conservatives have the perfect answer to science that challenges their rigid ideology… they reject it.
Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
Hmm. I could readily accept that conclusion.
UPDATE:
I’ve already received a couple angry emails, and I apologize. It was at the very least insensitive if not downright hurtful, and certainly inappropriate of me to make fun of people who suffer from organic brain disorders like conservatism. And so I’d like to shift gears and ask your help in coming up with a more appropriate label for this debilitating disease, that both honors the humanity of its sufferers and recognizes the love and joy that they can bring into our lives, despite their crippling disability.
In the comment threads, SeattleJew has suggested Conservative Brain Defect (CBD), though I believe Conservative Brain Disorder might be more value neutral. I’ve also suggested that we might just refer to conservatives as the “cognitively challenged.” Or perhaps maybe “differently ideological abled”…? “Hannitycapped”…? “Poliplegic”…?
Please add your suggestions in the comment thread and we’ll conduct a poll later this week.
On a related topic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/.....46,00.html
Study of Bush’s psyche touches a nerve
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday August 13, 2003
The Guardian
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in “fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity”.
[continues]
re: #1, the link talks about the 2003 study referenced above.
Conservatism by Choice
(SJ News, Seattle 4-1-2009)
David Goldstein, Chair of the National Association for Protection of Conservative People, Appeared in Seattle with Dr, Pepper Schwartz, the new director of the Bezos Btain Institute. The BBI was founded last year to develop therapeutic strategies to treat the recently discovered CBD, conservative brain defect. Dr. pepper’s team has already identified a candidate geen on the short arm of Chromosome 21.
The BBI was founded by Mr. Bezos to discover a cure for CBD when he discovered that his unborn son has the critical chromosome. Mr. Goldstein, not a scientist himself, will direct joint efforts to achieve full civil rights for the conservatively impaired. In a meeting with President Gravel, Mr. Goldstein brought along seven children, all of whom have the diagnosis but are not yet symptomatic. As Mr. Gravel kissed the babies, Goldstein introduced the Institute’s slogan, “Even These Can be Saved.”
In the meantime, Stefan Sharkansky, leader of a the group We Are Right (WAR), protested that “conservatism is not a disease, it is a way of life. Our children have the same right to be conservative as deaf kids do to use sign language. It is an insult to suggest our impairment brings us closer to chimps just because we share the gene with chimps.” WAR has argued that pre-birth screening for the conservative gene, sometimes called chimp-1, was a violation of the right to life.
SeattleJew @3,
“CBD”…? I think more appropriate term to describe conservatism might be “Cognitively Challenged.”
John Dean — a conservative himself — cites similar research in; Conservatives without Conscience.
I am beginning to think that the tendency of extreme conservatives like Stefan Sharkansky to reject evidence that doesn’t fit their ideology – on matters of survival like climate change …and to see others around them in such rigid categories as to justify allowing them to live in poverty or to be tortured — really does reflect a kind of mental dysfunction.
Conservatism itself is not dysfunctional — but its extremes seem to attract people who tend toward this ability to shut out critically important evidence affecting even their own survival.
This is nihilism. And it has become extremely dangerous because it demands to be included as a viable world outlook in public policy. Its unreasonable demands are gaining increasing public policy traction. And so we have a major societal problem that we haven’t even gotten to the point of being able to confront. We’re afraid to confront it because it appears to be prejudicial to consider that people at the extremes of a certain philosophy are, essentially, developmentally delayed. But without any way to confront this problem as a matter of public policy, we may be headed toward self-destruction. We simply cannot afford to ignore climate change — or to treat property and wealth rights … and extreme political and religious ideology as more important than the rights and welfare of human beings.
soon then,
there will be a pill to cure “liberal thinking”
start distributing it to kids for free in schools early on (instead of condoms …. or Ethic class?)
**
Is there anything that could be done to speed up KIRO’s posting of the Podcast of your weekend shows??
DAVID GOLDSTEIN SHOW 09/01 HOUR 1
I am waiting for the current show to post.
(Not a technical issue since they already posted
DAVE’S COMMENTARY 09/10
09/10/07 – Listen to Dave Ross’ commentary. )
SeattleJew @3,
On second thought, you got me thinking. I’ve updated my post to apologize for being insensitive to those suffering from organic brain disorders like conservatism, and to ask for everybody’s help in coming up with an appropriate and value neutral name for this crippling disability. Ideas thus far:
Add your suggestions to the list and I’ll put the best ones in a poll later this week.
@6
Sounds like a good idea; conservati8ves certainly have no use whatever for “Ethic” class, a foreign concept.
I propose a telethon to help them deal with this disorder.
We could have video of Roger Moore helping Charlton Heston with his bib. Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, and Susan Sarandon could donate items from their highly successful careers for sale on eBay to raise money for walkers, colostomy bags, and Brylcreem.
As liberals, it is our responsibility, ney – our duty – to help our more cerebrally challenged conservative friends, neighbors, and wankers.
Give to the CBD Fund now.
Because a Conservative Mind is a terrible thing to have.
Limbotomized
This sort of goes along with a rule of thumb I’ve used for years to differentiate conservatives from liberals on the basis of general bahavior: Liberals tend to propose complex solutions for simple problems, while conservatives propose simple solutions for complex problems.
The latter approach sounds attractive on the surface, but it’s a complicated world, folks. Deal with it.
Limbotomized
Good, but I think “Limbaughtomized” is more precise.
How about…
Insidious Diametric Intellectually Opposed Thuggery Syndrome (I.D.I.O.T.S.)
Or…
Tenaciously Regressive Overtly Underdeveloped Brain Learnability Enigma (T.R.O.U.B.L.E.)
Then there is…
Brutally Underdeveloped Synaptic Host (B.U.S.H.)
Then you always have…
Dysfunctionally Underdeveloped Mind Syndrome (D.U.M.B.)
Which is dangerous when combined with…
Sycophant Hubris Ignorant Thug (S.H.I.T.)
Which ofcourse would give you a D.U.M.B.S.H.I.T., which is how we got to where we are currently.
As someone who has spent the good part of the last 14 years arguing with people on the internet, I can tell you that it’s not really conservatives who exhibit this trait, but the current crop of right-wing authoritarians. Up until 9/11, there was not much of a cognitive difference between the left and right in this country. After 9/11, that changed. Those on the left with this cognitive disability became Bush-bots, while intelligent people on the right have drifted towards the left and are now moderate Democrats. Of course, large swaths of the country are still Democrat or Republican out of habit, and don’t really pay close attention at all, but just continue to rely on broad themes.
Don’t know how I messed up on D.U.M.B., probably thinking ahead to the next word, but Syndrome should be Befuddled.
Well, let’s add some fuel from Slate. Today:
Are Liberals Smarter?Brain activity, accuracy, and political ideology.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Sept. 10, 2007, at 7:47 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2173643/
My understanding is that Pepper Schwartz’s research has shown that the underlying problem with CBD is that the victims of this disorder live in an alternative reality, related to schizophrenia but more difficult to detect.
Unfortunately, victims of alternative reality syndrome, ARS, often band together in shared fantasies. The obvious example is al Qaeda.
Here in a liberal society, existence of ARS has, of course, created a civil rights dilemma: “Shall alternative realities be taught in the public schools?” The stance of the ACLU is “yes.” A new committee of the civil right organization has been created to defend the rights of CBD children to learn creationism, intelligent design of the free markets, divine protection of the environments, and the awesome history of GW Bush.
Lee @14
It shows what FEAR will do. It works so well, that it has become the RNC/Administration answer to the handling of all public information.
It can be argued, of course, that this cognitive disability is in the form of excluding all secondary processes after the introduction of a large enough stimulus, and almost everyone experienced some degree of this right after the 9/11 event (especially certain congressional types), but the refractory period for conservatives seems MUCH longer.
OTOH, I’m merely a dumb postal techie, what do I know?
@17
Jesus Christ!!! SJ typed an entire comment correctly!!!!
Unfortunately, Ancient Prophets foretold this (Book of Revelling Visions) and the future’s gonna be grim….
Look for other Signs and Wonders :>
All
Goldy’s addendum to his front piece needs some comment.
Those who know me understand that I try to seek balance, if I use sarcasm it is hopefully plainly stated as such.
Humor aside, the frightening thing about the current right is its insistence on the right to live in an alternative reality. There is a close tie between creationism and the concept of “victory” in Iraq. Accepting OReilly and Hannity as reporters is as much a part of the syndrome as it would be for the other side, us, to align behind Chomsky (with all due apologies to Chomsky who is awfully bright).
Of course liberal can also live in a fantasy world, but that is usually not the case today. What does happen, unfortunately, is that the media accept the need to provide “balance.” This is a major problem … akin to the need of some prior to 1938 to offer a “balanced” view of Hitler. Apologists (Lindberg, Daddy Kennedy, Daddy Bush, Ford) said Americans should see Hitler’s “good side.” Of course, Mao and Stalin had a similar effect on their partisans … though in the US the alternative reality syndrome seems to be a lot stronger on one side than the other.
There is no way to balance an alternative reality. Maybe humor can help.
Back to our usual programming. I believe we should raise funds to seek a cure for ARS. I will not, however, stoop to the obvious by reminding people that the name of the discover of ARS was Horse.
@20
Steve:
There is, all humor aside, a religious component to the whole extreme right wing shtick; it’s not just creationism, it’s an apocalyptic vision. We’re in the “End Times”, and our God-fearing president is just bringing to fruition the “Second Coming” (and the conversion of the Jews, don’t you know).
Liberals (and lots of others) have been dismissing this as the ranting of some overly religious types for years.
News Flash: There are a great many more of these folks than you think, and to them, their belief system, no matter how loony (or theologically bogus) we may think it to be, trumps ABSOLUTELY everything. Ask them; they speak with the voice of God. Anything they’re told, by leaders or “voices”, is vastly more important to them than the trivial laws of men.
didactic sclerosis
@18
You seem to know a lot, actually.
Some of the craziest “righties” out there are folks who were not on the right until 9/11.
Obviously, I spend way too much time dealing with trolls and trying to understand not only what makes them come to the ridiculous conclusions they come to (much of it is just a matter of perceiving right-wing radio folks as prophet-like figures who are persecuted for their heretic views), but also how entrenched their denial can be. Obviously, we haven’t seen our SoCal friend around here in a while, but even after the number I did on him (I responded to every single comment he left here for about 10 days), he probably just thinks I’m some sorcerer who was has magical powers to twist words around, rather than someone who understands the world better than him and was able to break down his BS.
We live in a strange time.
“Rectified Pickled-Cucumber Syndrome”
Another TJ @12: You’re right, that’s much more clever. Change my submission!
Lee @14:
If Bush/Iraq approval poll results are any indication, lots of people flocked to conservatism during the 01-04 period. Maybe they were motivated by fear, desire for revenge, or just Clinton fatigue. But this is just a curable, virulent form of the disease, since the numbers are so different these days.
The real test for someone with congenital CBD is the ability to be a conservative now. CBD could be a buried trait whose phenotype shows up only in the course of events like 9/11 and the aftermath. So the CBD sufferers are that percentage of the existing “docile” conservatives of the 90s (tax-agitators and Clinton impeachers) who are the dead-ender conservatives of today.
BTW, for the sake of your health, I hope that wasn’t 14 continuous years of argument online.
re 12: The robotic, psychiatric, and slightly veiled wingnut talk-show blather implications of the term ‘Limbotomized’ gives that phrase the rich and nuanced meanings that Liberals relish and leaves wingnuts scratching their noggins.
“The differences between liberals and conservatives may run deeper than how they feel about welfare reform or the progress of the Iraq war: Researchers reported Sunday that their brains may actually work differently.”
Yeah, theirs are the size of raisins.
SJ@20:
This really hits squarely the major fallacy of the traditional MSM. As insane as the conservative alternate reality is, for otherwise smart people in the media to legitimize it with “balanced coverage” is even crazier.
“Most people function just fine. But there’s a little variability in how sensitive people are to the cue that they need to change their current course.”
Try dynamite under their ass if a two-by-four across the forehead doesn’t work.*
* Speaking metaphorically, of course! Imitating wingnut humor a la Ann Coulter Jokes, LLP.
re 6: The cure to liberal thinking is a rectally applied sour gherkin.
“A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality.”
Recent field work indicates some conservatives are intolerant of people who criticize their children’s behavior in restaurants.
Conservative Brain Syndrome? At least it’s a little polite (if not vague). Maybe I could come up with that since I’m a “flexible liberal thinker” and can “change gears when my response wouldn’t be as appropriate” as it could be! But, there’s a problem with the first letters being: CBS. Maybe Conservative Cortex Syndrome? (another flexible reponse! I’m so proud of my liberal brain!)
“And so I’d like to shift gears and ask your help in coming up with a more appropriate label for this debilitating disease, that both honors the humanity of its sufferers and recognizes the love and joy that they can bring into our lives, despite their crippling disability.”
Differently brained.
“And so I’d like to shift gears and ask your help in coming up with a more appropriate label for this debilitating disease, that both honors the humanity of its sufferers and recognizes the love and joy that they can bring into our lives, despite their crippling disability.”
Or how about ‘differently intellectualized’?
This topic has potential! We’re gonna have some fun with this!
How about Cognitive Disassembly Syndrome — Retarded (CDSR*)?
* Also stands for Can’t Do Shit Right.
A difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives simply think that while liberals are wrong, they have the inalienable right to be wrong. That’s called freedom.
Liberals, on the other hand, think they are better than conservatives – smarter, better educated, genetically superior, more divinely inspired, now saner and possessed of a superior mental health – such that they, and they alone, should be allowed to speak, write, govern, etc. (ask David Horowitz about the liberal “tolerance” he receives when he tries to speak on college campuses). Liberals believe that all should bow to their enlightened “progressive thinking.” Of course, we saw much the same in National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union, but then again liberals have always been more in favor of conformity and control than liberty and freedom.
But this is simply my POV; each of you is entitled to your own, and I respect that just as I’m sure each of you will acknowledge my right to my own and will respect that.
Or will you?
The Piper
“Cerebral Agglutination Dysplasia”
Of course in the medical tradition we often name syndromes after the first patients or discoverer. Hmmm
How about:
Bush-Rove Syndrome?
another thought, the limbic system is the part of the primitve brain that works a t emotional, irration level as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system
Could CBD be a Limbal or Limbaughtic disorder?
(Seattle 2012, SJ News)
Gyrogenetics, INc. announced today the successful phase two teial of their new drug “Alimban.” From the company’s press release: “Alimban(r) works directly on the limbal system to decrease excessive urges to irrationality and bigotry. The mechanism appears to be via desentization of the receptor Faux-1, a binding protein for Fauxnews.” Alimban was first discovered by the Michael Vick Institute for Canine Rehabilitation as a cure for dogs that had been trained by Mr. Vock for viscious combat. Teh Atlanta Falcons have announced that they are going to rehire Mr, Vick because of the astounding success of the work he funded.
(New York City, SJNews April 1 2013)
In her presentation to the annual convention of the AMA, Dr. Pepper Schwartz, Professor of LImbal Medicine at the University of Washington) addressed the ethical issues raised by the recent approval of Alimban(r).
“Of course Alimban does raise serious issues. If conservatism is of genetic origin, like homosexuality, some argue we should accept it as part of the spectrum of human behavior. Should children be taught to accept other children raised by conservative parents? Should readers in grade school include conservatives as normal parents of children just as they inlcude peole with traditional, healthy values?
Above all, if Alimban passes phase III, should use of Alimabn be made mandatory for all victims of CBD?”
(Seattle Seattle Times April1, 2014)
Despite the popularity of President Gravel’s new system of universal health care, we need to expression caution about federal funds being used to modify behavior. While Alimban(r) is certainly an appropriate therapy for those with severe alternative reality syndrome, many conservatives are not deranged and do not require chemical therapy at the cost to their fellow tax payers. The editorial board of the Times urges those with the disability to use non pharmaceutical means such as long walks, reason, and avoidance of limbal stimulating radio programs rather than forcing all of us to pay for their disorder.
(Seattle Sound Politics April 1 2021) We would like to announces the merger of this blog with the friendly people at HorsesAss. The joint blog, to be called, Sound of a Horse’s Ass, will continue to be dited by Time Eynma. David Goldstein, House Speaker Burner’s Chief of staff and founder of HorsesAss said, “The tradition of HorsesAss will be ably carried on by the addition of a professional editor. I can imagine few others with the breadth of experience as Tim. Who would have guessed?”
Next thing you know Gyrogenics will come out with a drug that will teach me how to type.
Is there any reason to suspect that ARS is caused by excess ingestion of toxins contained in foodstuff imported from China?
Is it an accident that the incidence of ARS increased after Nixon’s visit to China? Was Reagan’s diability an early example of ARS?
I wonder if rather than genetic, ARS might not be a result of eating food contaminated by melamine?
Goldy, could we raise funds to measure the melamine levels in conservatives vs liberals?
@37
a clear example of :
“Encephalorrhea Asinine “
re 37: An interesting feature of the sociopathic personality is that it always attempts to elicit sympathy from others and is always politically conservative. Before you go slouching off toward Bethlehem, I also want to remind you that by every realistic measure, Josef Stalin was a social and political conservative.
Ask Ted Bundy.
Hannitycapped, for sure! Priceless.
Maybe they should have special license plate stickers?
@37
Liberals, on the other hand, think they are better than conservatives – smarter, better educated, genetically superior, more divinely inspired, now saner and possessed of a superior mental health – such that they, and they alone, should be allowed to speak, write, govern, etc. (ask David Horowitz about the liberal “tolerance” he receives when he tries to speak on college campuses). Liberals believe that all should bow to their enlightened “progressive thinking.” Of course, we saw much the same in National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union, but then again liberals have always been more in favor of conformity and control than liberty and freedom.
Piper, you’ve demonstrated perfectly what I’m talking about. You can’t possibly look at either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union and tell me that the conformity and control characteristics of those two regimes are in line with modern day liberals or progressives in America. The point that I’m making is that what we think of as “conservative” (and as it is used in the referenced study) is actually authoritarian extremism. Authoritarian extremism is the common underlying thread of modern American “conservatives”.
I respect your opinion, but you still have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
12
Then the surgical cure would be a:
Limbaughtomy
Wherein your head is gently removed from your ass and replaced with your thumb. A second surgery will be required, obviously.
When discussing this topic with CONservatives, bring up the following:
1. Your touching faith that the free market will cure their disorder and “bring them back toward equilibrium”.
2. Dismiss all their claims as “just another theory”.
3. Encourage them to enroll in a 12 step program: Authoritarians Anonymous (AA).
Folks, you prove my point and stand condemned out of your own mouths…and other orefices.
I acknowledged your right to be wrong, which includes being knuckleheaded, yet all you can do is heap scorn upon me and scourge me with pejoratives, which I welcome and wear as badges and battle scars of honor.
Stalin a conservative? Perish the thought! Since an essential tenet of conservative thought is individual liberty and private property, Stalin is more the ultimate expression of liberal thinking and collectivization. And it was under his regime that Soviet “mental health experts” started imprisoning dissidents who criticized Uncle Joe because any deviation from his (or yours now) orthodoxy can only be explained as mental illness.
Well, what the hell and call me crazy!
BTW…contracts have been let to replace Thomas Jefferson’s visage on Mt. Rushmore with that of Karl Rove.
Oh…lest I forget…As the reputation among historians and presidential scholars of Ronaldus Magnus Reagenus increases and that of Jimmy Carter the Lesser decreases, I want to remind you that the inexorable tide of history is on my side, not yours. And you can bet the farm on it!
The Piper
PS: I should give credit where credit is due and tip my hat to those among you who embrace humor as a rhetorical device. Would that more of you deign as much. Just remember…he who laughs last…
I’ve already received a couple angry emails
Ya’ don’t say? I am aghast!
Less name calling, more positive-change-oriented:
Depression Of Mental Flexibility (DOMF)
37
Piper,
We respect your right to be stupid. We just ask that our right to point it out be left unfettered.
Example: I now oppose the war in Iraq. Don’t call me a traitor or terrorist lover. Shades of 1920’s Germany if you ask me.
Dissent is what drives this country. It is why the power between conservatives and liberals ebbs and flows.
@37 Piper au contraire
In fact the current situation is exactly the reverse of what you state. There are no significant liberal antidotes to OReilly, Hannity or Limbaugh. These guys routinely yell, dissemble, and demean others for not agreeing with them. There have been liberals like this in the past, but rarely.
Where you make your mistake is giving equal rights to alternative realities. Yes, liberals are intolerant of those who deny the reality of evolution, the social contract, laws of economics and laws of thermodynamics. In contrast, all to often the right is intolerant of reality itself.
Take me for example (some here might say please). I am not really a liberal or a conservative. I try to be a realist. Yet the DL crew tolerate my views as long as I can support them with good arguements and facts. (Thank you all!). Sometimes others even convince me that I am wrong (I used to oppose abortion). Sometimes I manage to convince other “liberals” taht I am right (lets leave that alone).
Now imagine me trying to mix at a conservative version fo DL? In my best French accent imagine .. Immpausibeel! That ios why I argue FOR the Remnant of the Rational Right. I think such a thing does exist, but there is a real danger of the RRR becoming extinct.
For those who read history, something of the sort has happened before. We forget today how Jefferson overturned the Federalists with their Alien and Sedition Act. As much as I admire the now defunct party of Adams and Hamilton, the Federalist had like todays Repricans gone over the deep end. It took a civil war to restore some balance to our system.
Of course there are liberals who are also irrational. We used to have a lot of them. Fortunately for the country that faction has largely gone away.
So, from my small Jewish POV, the issue ought not to be conservative vs. liberal. It ought to be irrational vs rational.
@48: “I want to remind you that the inexorable tide of history is on my side….”
Spoken like a good Trotskyite. You demonstrate the same historical determinism that conservatives so often decry. A ‘real’ conservative (say, Eddie Burke) would never utter such nonsense.
Way to go.
@48 FWIW
Ronnie had one wonderful trait … charisma and patriotism. Other than that the facts of his presidency are sad.
He inherited a strengthened military form Mr.Carter but screwed it up with such irrational ideas as Star Wars and battleships.
Reagan’s economy cost us a long term debt that was not reduced until Clinton brought in Robert Rubin to rationalize our tax system.
Reagan’s irredentism cost us Chile and slowed down what should have been progress in China and Vietnam.
His stance on the USSR led to the dispersion fo atomic weapons, possibly into the hands of elQaeda.
He overturned Carter initiative for alternative fule development (nuff said).
He failed, unlike Clinton, to make any progress in Palestine.
He armed Saddam Hussein and bribed mobsters in the drug world.
OK .. your turn.
How about RCI – rectal-cranial inversion?
@48 Stalin was not a conservative
On this we agree BUT he was, like today’s Bushies irrational, he insisted on “soviet realism” even when ti disagreed with science.
Do you know about Lysenko? Like the Discovery Institute, Lysenko had an alternative theory to Darwin. Because that teory fit Stalin’s concepts of reality, he insisted on Soviet Agriculture using Lysenko’s science. Can you spell starvation?
Personally I thin any doctrinaire, irrational system is had. The irony of your posts is that you can not see how simialr Stalin and Bush or Reagan are. Irrationality does not have tom mean evil I’spect Bush and Ronnie both mean (menat) well and Josef was an evil SOB. BUT, the willingness to put religions (Communism being one religion) pover objectivity is fatal.
@48
BTW…contracts have been let to replace Thomas Jefferson’s visage on Mt. Rushmore with that of Karl Rove.
finally …
a place we can build an altar and bring our children for ceremonial sacrifices,
to protect us from “the evildoers”,
without having to invade other countries to have them killed …
Heil Rove !!
All you conservatives, check this out from the AP:
My liberal brain tells me you can’t hang on to all of them. The question is not taking back the Senate, but rather how do you limit the losses? Not if the Dems will have a majority, but just how huge is it going to be?
(I can’t resist this next line).
Wrap your minds around that!
Sigh…so much raw material handed to me as if upon a silver salver (look it up).
Jimmy Carter, more than any single human being on the planet, bears responsibility for the creation of al-Quida. Had he not signalled old Leonid Brezhnev that it was OK for the Russkies to invade Afghanistan, then Osama bin Laden wouldn’t have had a cause that morphed him into what he is today.
Remember Carter of malaise, gasoline shortages and lines at the service station, the Iran hostage crisis, and so much more. Any wonder the last true liberal President of the United States (Clinton is an opportunist without convictions, whereas a liberal like Carter willingly and lemming-like walks off the cliff of ideology without regard to consequence) was not just defeated for re-election, he run out of town on a rail. Sucker even got chased off a lake by a crazed rabbit, he was so disrespected!
I love how liberals cop conservative heroes for their own purposes. Edmund (NEVER Eddie) Burke, the great Irish-Anglo statesman, was a beliver in limited government, personal liberty (including the right to own and use property as one sees fit, a singularly un-liberal dogma), and skeptical of governmental control and authority.
Liberals have beaucoup outlets for their Johnny-one-note sambas: NBC, The NY Times, The Seattle Times (love those daily meetings now outed as the left-wing coffee klatches they are)and P-I, and everyone’s favorite sucker-upon-the-public-teat welfare queen, NPR. What’s the matter that Bill Moyers can’t compete without a taxpayer-funded subsidy???
And let me reiterate the David Horowitz example: whenever a conservative comes to a campus, the tolerant, progressive, open-minded thinkers on campus do their level best to shout him or her down all in the name of…free speech???
SJ…just so you’ll know…I struggled mightely with my conscience before coming out against the Alien and Sedition Act. But I still think John Adams is a far greater American than he’s commonly credited.
But was Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase Constitutional? Should we give it back to the French? Thoughts???
Final (for the moment) thought…I don’t go around calling people stupid even when they behave in a manner justifying the appellation. Generally, those who are evidence it by so labeling others since to them it passes for witty repartee and the fullest extent to which they can engage in debate.
Stultum facit fortuna quem vult perdre. Syrus.
Your turn…
The Piper
Damn my typing: just some corrections:
@48 Stalin was not a conservative
On this we agree BUT the man of steel was, like today’s Bushies irrational. Stalin, who trained in a very religious school, insisted on “soviet realism” even when it disagreed with science. Stalin was as fanatical about this religion as OBL is about Islam, The Pope is about RCism, or GWB is about Jesus.
Do you know about Lysenko? Like the Discovery Institute, Lysenko had an alternative theory to Darwin. Because that theory fit Stalin’s concepts of reality, the leader insisted on Soviet Agriculture using Lysenko’s science. Can you spell starvation? Can you imagine how long the effects of bushism will harm the US scientific and educational establishments?
Personally I think any doctrinaire, irrational system is had. You are correct that comparing GWB to an evil nutcase is unfair, but the irony of your posts is that you can not see how similar Stalin and Bush or Reagan actually are.
Irrationality does not have to mean evil. I’spect Bush and Ronnie both mean (meant) well and Josef was an evil SOB. BUT, the willingness to put religions (Communism being one religion)over objectivity is fatal.
Goldy, I think there is already a name for this, and a description in DSM IV to boot. I’m sure you could pick several from this list. Especially that first one – “Antisocial Personality Disorder.”
Since SJ raised the issue…
On the subject of religion, I figure this: if mankind is the best there is, we’re screwed! There better be a God to get us out of the mess we’ve created, or else we might as well all pack it in!
I like what Norman Maclean wrote in “A River Runs Through It” when speaking of his father’s beliefs, “As a Scot (I am one) and a Presbyterian (I used to be one, but now I’m a Baptist), my father believed that man by nature was a mess and had fallen from an original state of grace…(O)nly by picking up God’s rhythms (are) we able to regain power and beauty.”
There are higher values than politics…
The Piper
Finally, an explanation for why the left does not give up or get disappointed after decades of “surges” in the war on poverty and the declining effectivity of public education.
@59 Piper ..,
You notably avoided answering my questions about specific, factual issues. Instead you released a fusillade of ad hominem attacks on the Presidency of Mr. Carter.
By your reasoning, if Ronnie had supported the Soviets unlimited use of power in Afghanistan, el Quaeda would have been wiped out! The hostage crisis, of course, was a result of the overthrow of a malfunctioning monarchy supported heavily by Mr, Carter’s predecessors. You might remember the prominent role of Mr. Nixion in the Shah’s career.
I have no idea what you want done for or about David Horowitz.. as usual you are not being specific about facts. Is there a particular issue that he has addressed that is not being dealt with fairly? Some academic whose promotion was not upheld because she preached ideas that were too right?
Back at MY list. Lets just take one issue: alternative fuels. Jimmy’s analysis and predictions were right on. (BTW, under him the CIA also accurately predicted that the Soviet Economy would fall in the 80s because of inefficient use of oil). What Mr. Carter lacked was the charisma that Reagan exercised. Give a President Reagan’s charisma and Carter’s rational mind and we might just get something done.
As for Jefferson, YOU are making my point. Mr. J knew fully well that eh was violating the Constitution and, even more importantly, he was violating his own principles of state rights. BUT, Jefferson was above all else rational Faced with a conflict between reality and religion, our third President did the right thing.
As for Adams, of course we agree. He too was a realist and as you know opposed the extremists of this own party. Although the Whigs never grew into a true party, unlike the Democrats, I believe (as I suspect you do) that the heirs of Adams today would be in the Republican party. Unfortunatley, the GOP seems to have few leaders of Adams’ caliber.
@62 Piper
To paraphrase
“On the subject of political leadership, I figure this: if the current Republican crop is the best there is, we’re screwed! There better be someone better to get us out of the mess we’ve created, or else we might as well all pack it in!”
Your point about Clinton is important, BTW. Many of us see him as the best conservative president in American history. Change the labels a bit and the Repricans would all be yelling, “Hillary and Bill, a Package Deal.”
@48
Folks, you prove my point and stand condemned out of your own mouths…and other orefices.
I could’ve been more clear in my last comment. I’ll explain in more detail why your last comment was ridiculous.
I acknowledged your right to be wrong, which includes being knuckleheaded, yet all you can do is heap scorn upon me and scourge me with pejoratives, which I welcome and wear as badges and battle scars of honor.
If you’re gonna come in here and say stupid things, we’re going to point that out. What you said in comment #37 is stupid, historically inaccurate, and blind to the current political reality in America. And I’m happy to explain it all to you right now.
Stalin a conservative? Perish the thought!
Stalin certainly has more in common with America’s political right than with America’s political right. He was a strict authoritarian. As I mentioned before, one of the main phenomena of the post 9/11 period in this country is that authoritarianism has defined the right-wing more than conservatism.
Since an essential tenet of conservative thought is individual liberty and private property, Stalin is more the ultimate expression of liberal thinking and collectivization.
But the ideas of individual liberty and private property have absolutely nothing to do with what the right wing in this country currently believes in. The current right wing in this country believes in allowing the President to spy on us without oversight. They’ve cheered the removal of habeas corpus and actually defended the way the government held U.S. citizen Jose Padilla for two years, torturing him, without any ability for him to contest his detainment. They continue to fill our jails with drug users. And to top it all off, the leading contender for the Republican nomination is the most avid gun control advocate of them all.
And it was under his regime that Soviet “mental health experts” started imprisoning dissidents who criticized Uncle Joe because any deviation from his (or yours now) orthodoxy can only be explained as mental illness.
But that sounds much more like America’s right-wing than the left wing. Look at how the right treats homosexuality and casual drug use. Look at how frequently the right-wing talks about putting more people in jail to fix the problems in our society. They think exactly the way Stalin thought.
Well, what the hell and call me crazy!
You’re crazy if you think that the authoritarianism of Stalin is more reminiscent of the American left today than the American right today.
BTW…contracts have been let to replace Thomas Jefferson’s visage on Mt. Rushmore with that of Karl Rove.
And you insist you’re not crazy?
PS: I should give credit where credit is due and tip my hat to those among you who embrace humor as a rhetorical device. Would that more of you deign as much. Just remember…he who laughs last…
Oh, we’ve gone through this before with trolls. We know who will be laughing last…
@66
Stalin certainly has more in common with America’s political right than with America’s political right.
Whoa!! Huge typo!!
Stalin certainly has more in common with America’s political right than with America’s political left.
BTW .. your comment about Bill Moyers, as I understand it NPR outdraws all the conservative talk stations combined.
Since you think $$$ is a good measure ,,, please note the commercial success of Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and the Colbert Report. Maybe concervatism ain’t funny?
In Re Rove on Rushmore.
Piper, I assume you know Mr. Rove already has a monument> Are you from out of town? I assume most people in Seattle have already been to Fremont?
http://students.washington.edu.....troll1.jpg
I have been told that the erection of this monument to Mr. Rove was meant to provide fair and balanced attention to the Right, given the use of a Lenin statue to sell fish tacos a few blocks away. Just goes to show how fair liberals really are!
I had not realized that visitors to Seattle did not know about the Rove Monument!
May I suggest we all make a point of taking visitors there and lighting a candle for our boy in Crawford? Is there any chance the Republican party would like to erect a little booth with souvenirs?
@59
Jimmy Carter, more than any single human being on the planet, bears responsibility for the creation of al-Quida. Had he not signalled old Leonid Brezhnev that it was OK for the Russkies to invade Afghanistan, then Osama bin Laden wouldn’t have had a cause that morphed him into what he is today.
What?! First of all, Osama Bin Laden was an oddball from the very beginning of his life. He was unusually obsessed with religion from a young age and he did a number of things both before an after his time in Afghanistan in the 80s that were just as influential on his thinking.
Both Reagan and Bush I bear much more responsibility for the creation of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda didn’t become an actual organization until after the Gulf War in 1991. Their main recruiting mechanism was to convince people that the American military footprint in Saudi Arabia was the first step in an attempt to convert the Muslim world to western Christianity. Now I also believe there was quite a bit of good that was done by Bush I in the Gulf War, but the reality is that his actions led to the formation of Bin Laden’s “base” of operations that eventually became Al Qaeda.
I love how liberals cop conservative heroes for their own purposes. Edmund (NEVER Eddie) Burke, the great Irish-Anglo statesman, was a beliver in limited government, personal liberty (including the right to own and use property as one sees fit, a singularly un-liberal dogma), and skeptical of governmental control and authority.
He also was a strong critic of Thomas Paine, one of our most well-respected founding fathersm because Paine dared to suggest that heredity was a bad way to assign positions in government. In many ways, the Paine-Burke argument parallels the discussions that occur between those on the left and right. And Paine was most certainly on the side of greater individual liberty when it came to choosing how a government should function.
Liberals have beaucoup outlets for their Johnny-one-note sambas: NBC, The NY Times, The Seattle Times (love those daily meetings now outed as the left-wing coffee klatches they are)and P-I, and everyone’s favorite sucker-upon-the-public-teat welfare queen, NPR. What’s the matter that Bill Moyers can’t compete without a taxpayer-funded subsidy???
Oh please, I am sick and tired of this nonsense about the liberal media. Either post some links to some proof of this wild assertion or expect to be laughed at. This supposed “liberal media” openly allowed a right-wing president railroad this country into a bullshit war while liberal voices across the country were ignored. How on earth do you think that happened with such a liberal media?
And let me reiterate the David Horowitz example: whenever a conservative comes to a campus, the tolerant, progressive, open-minded thinkers on campus do their level best to shout him or her down all in the name of…free speech???
David Horowitz is nuts. He should be allowed to speak, but the only appropriate response is laughter.
SJ…just so you’ll know…I struggled mightely with my conscience before coming out against the Alien and Sedition Act. But I still think John Adams is a far greater American than he’s commonly credited.
So what do you think about the right-wing’s attempts to take away habeas corpus and to allow the Pentagon to designate people as “enemy combatants”? Do you think this is the right strategy in the war on terror?
Final (for the moment) thought…I don’t go around calling people stupid even when they behave in a manner justifying the appellation. Generally, those who are evidence it by so labeling others since to them it passes for witty repartee and the fullest extent to which they can engage in debate.
Well, I do. A lot of people today need to be told that they’re stupid. Too many people in this country are spoiled rotten and could use a good tongue lashing when it comes to believing is stupid things. Adults should not believe in fairy tales, and they shouldn’t be crying about it when people tell them that they’re stupid for doing so.
We know who will be laughing last…
The slowest person in the room?
Damn liberal media:
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/.....-gore.html
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/.....-gore.html
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/.....hetic.html
Cognitive Stenosis !
Hey SeattleJew,
This is strangely on topic, but Jim Miller just shut down the comment thread at Sound Politics where we created an unacceptable amount of cognitive dissonce for the natives, claiming that we “proved his point”.
SJ…
Go check the ratings…
If Moyers is such a huge draw, why does he need a taxpayer subsidy and periodic NPR or PBS beg-a-thons to stay on the air? The royalties from Big Bird alone are enough to provide a down payment on mental health therapy for liberals.
Bill Maher…He ain’t funny either.
But compare apples to apples…radio to radio…TV to TV…While you’re at it, check this out:
http://insidecable.blogsome.com/category/ratings/
Cable News Daily Live Ratings for September 6, 2007
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 888,000 viewers
CNN – 530,000 viewers
MSNBC – 284,000 viewers
CNBC – 200,000 viewers
HLN – 221,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 1,711,000 viewers
CNN – 771,000 viewers
MSNBC – 551,000 viewers
CNBC – 158,000 viewers
HLN – 481,000 viewers
25-54 Total Day
FNC – 239,000 viewers
CNN – 180,000 viewers
MSNBC – 116,000 viewers
CNBC – 64,000 viewers
HLN – 95,000 viewers
25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 378,000 viewers
CNN – 246,000 viewers
MSNBC – 209,000 viewers
CNBC – 46,000 viewers
HLN – 174,000 viewers
Morning programs P2+ (25-54)
FOX & Friends – 843,000 viewers (285,000)
American Morning – 419,000 viewers (156,000)
MSNBC Live (7-9am) – 214,500 viewers (68,000)
Robin & Co. – 180,000 viewers (73,000)
And let’s not forget Air America! Or have all of you been in therapy to that end? Just checking.
Again on David Horowitz and other conservatives who brave the hallowed halls of academia. Whenever he’s invited on a campus to speak, you can bet that the so-called “progressives” in both the faculty and student body will band together to prevent him from uttering a single word. Through interrupting speeches, taking over the stage, and other tactics suspiciously reminiscent of certain brown shirted Germans in the early 30’s, Horowitz’s, et al, right to speak and his audience’s right to listen are trampled…but in the most open-minded of ways.
Stalin was a collectivist and socialist of the first rank. Of course it’s in the nature of socialists and their diminutive cousins, liberals, to take and control that which they do not own.
Oh…another BTW…Pope Benedict recently called Karl Rove and asked him to convert to Catholicism so that he can be the first person ever beatified without having to die first.
The Iraqi Parliament, as soon as it returns from its summer vacation at Sol Duc Hot Springs, will entertain a bill to change the name of the country from Iraq to Irove.
A new book, “The Live and Loves of Karl Rove,” will be required reading for all children in Seattle Public Schools. Not just once, mind you, but three times per year in each grade.
Torture Jose Padilla??? Prove it! Sucker’s since been convicted of terrorist activity. I love it how you guys are all for terrorist rights.
While you’re at it, check out the SCOTUS case of Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) where FDR convened a secret tribunal to try a gang of German saboteurs and than have them summarily executed. The decision reads, in part, as follows:
“…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”
Eleanor Roosevelt agreed. And William O. Douglas, a liberal’s liberal, was on the court at the time. The opinion in Quirin was unanimous.
Jimmy Carter left office a failure. His energy policy can be summed up as a “make Americans suffer” effort. Turn down thermostats and put on sweaters and learn to live with less. Carter blamed his failures as a leader on the American people (the “malaise” speech), and he was tempermentally, philosophically, and experientially ill-suited to be President.
Clinton was a poll-driven President. If he could be convinced that an election could be won by rounding up people and jailing them, he’d do it in a heart beat; the man has no convictions and thinks only with his Johnson.
Hillary, on the other hand, is the Dick Nixon of our time. She lusts for the office such that she will eventually squash her Democratic opposition like so many bugs, her machine is that powerful.
Bill and Hill…your typical dysfunctional marriage.
Anything else???
The Piper
@69…SJ, do I read you “right???” Are you saying that looking at the Rove Monument gives liberals an erection??? Please clarify.
The Piper
@75 Censorship ..obviously he is a closet liberal.
@76 Piper …
with all remaining respect, you are proving my point. I gave you an opportunity twice to discuss specific factual issues and you respond by spreading ill smelling excement over my screen. PUHLEEEZ.
Even agreeing with you does no good because you do not care about facts. Look, we all agree that President Carter was unsuccessful in selling the public on the reality .. the real need to conserve. BUT, the Repricans were worse, they led the US into a fantasy land where oil was cheaper than milk. Yep, that Reagun .. great leader he. Maybe HUMMER will name its new SUV after him.
As for your citing who likes to watch
dog fightsFaux vs the less exciting, more factual channels what in all hell does that have to do with the issue we were discussing? The Playboy channel would do even better than Faux if it were not censored. Folks watch Faux for the dog fights! Surely you are not going to claim that OReilly is not afflicted with CBD?OTOH, Maher only makes a buck if cable users choose to subscribe. Wonder why HBO makes money? Q-U-A-L-I-T=Y programming, they elave the mud restling to others.
Either discuss facts or return to the fantasy world until Alimbal is available for clinical trials.
@77 have yu seen the Rove Monument ? How did it effect you?
@75 Hay Lee, five up!
I wonder how long SP would last if a truth squad (as opposed to the usual trolls) took em on.
I will need to go by the Rove Monument and offer a special sacrifice this week. I hear QFC is having a special on LIVE doves! Rove likes ’em freshly killed, I hear.
I think of them as Conservopithecus, soon to be supplanted, surpassed, and extincted.
SJ…
Haven’t caught the Rove Monument. Don’t generally venture into Seatlle unless accompanied by my personal military detachment fully armed to the teeth.
Carter wasn’t merely a bad salesman as you imply. He tried to sell a bad PRODUCT! His policies failed, not just his presentation of them. And he urged Americans to conserve not because it was wise, but, rather, because we were out of everything, which the market proceeded to tell him was so much hooey.
Your comments about Fox New go back to my original point that liberals (in your heart, you know you are one) simply think they’re better than everyone. I’ve also watched enough CNN to cringe at the bias I see there. And perish the thought of ever doing anything with the NY Times editorial page save lining the birdcage with it…but the bird complains.
From what I hear, there’s plenty of oil yet to be extracted…from DOMESTIC sources. Shoot me if you will, but I’m all for drilling in ANWR and building more refineries (bottlenecks in supply artificially ratchet up price by making gasoline scarce…when was the last refinery built in the U.S.?).
I’m also in favor of alternative sources such as wind-driven turbines…like the ones the Kingfisher of Liberals, His Corpundancy Teddy Kennedy, is fighting tooth and nail to prevent from being built seveal MILES off the coast of his home. He’s all for screwing up the lives of others, just don’t mess with his view. So much for noblesse oblige…
@66…I still think it’s regrettable that anyone thinks he’s so smart or so cock-sure of himself that he thinks it’s OK to call anyone else “stupid” in a debate. To do so is a demonstration of both an inability to think on your feet (or with your keyboard) and a paucity of ideas. If you’re so angry and filled with bile that you have to resort to that, perhaps it’s not conservatives who are in need of leafing through the DSM-IV (to be replaced by the DSM-V in 2012).
If you want to play this game, then you have to learn to get as well as give…And keep a bit of a sense of humor about it all since there are more important things in life…like getting rid of that G.D. Jeff Weaver from the Mariner’s roster!!!
The Piper
@75 and 81…
Fellows, Miller had 130 some odd postings, and since it’s his entry on the SP blog, he has the right to say when the party’s over. Besides, some of the stuff said over there got downright nasty! So much for Robert Jamieson exercising his free speech rights to make a point; can’t have that,now, can we???
The Piper
14 Lee
I don’t agree. You really think that the people you (and I) argued with during the Clinton Wars were operating in reality?
@76
Piper,
You should keep in mind that the National Enquirer had always had a much higher readership than any major American newspaper. What does that tell you about Fox News?
Again on David Horowitz and other conservatives who brave the hallowed halls of academia. Whenever he’s invited on a campus to speak, you can bet that the so-called “progressives” in both the faculty and student body will band together to prevent him from uttering a single word.
David Horowitz has spoken at a number of schools and has actually slandered a number of professors. I don’t think he should be censored, and he’s not censored in most places, but his views are completely ridiculous.
Through interrupting speeches, taking over the stage, and other tactics suspiciously reminiscent of certain brown shirted Germans in the early 30’s, Horowitz’s, et al, right to speak and his audience’s right to listen are trampled…but in the most open-minded of ways.
You know nothing about history. I suggest you pick up a copy of Mein Kampf. The kinds of accusations that Horowitz makes against the academic left are identical to the kinds of accusations that Hitler makes in that book. Hitler accused academics of selling out the German people because of their pacifist tendencies and their inability to perceive the threats to the German homeland.
Stalin was a collectivist and socialist of the first rank. Of course it’s in the nature of socialists and their diminutive cousins, liberals, to take and control that which they do not own.
Whether he was a collectivist or an individualist doesn’t matter. Both extremes can become authoritarian when they control enough of the levers of power in a country. That’s the reality of what’s happened here in this country, and even though the underlying ecomonic beliefs were different, the tactics used to hold onto power are the same. And people who “get” what’s happening in this country right now understand that.
Oh…another BTW…Pope Benedict recently called Karl Rove and asked him to convert to Catholicism so that he can be the first person ever beatified without having to die first.
What’s your point? The Catholic Church also sided with Hitler, you buffoon.
The Iraqi Parliament, as soon as it returns from its summer vacation at Sol Duc Hot Springs, will entertain a bill to change the name of the country from Iraq to Irove.
Are you going to be serious, or do you always start acting like a child when someone hands your ass to you?
A new book, “The Live and Loves of Karl Rove,” will be required reading for all children in Seattle Public Schools. Not just once, mind you, but three times per year in each grade.
Makes sense. Mein Kampf was required reading for schoolchildren in Germany.
Torture Jose Padilla??? Prove it! Sucker’s since been convicted of terrorist activity. I love it how you guys are all for terrorist rights.
Thanks for paraphrasing Stalin, jackass. You’re making this very easy for me.
While you’re at it, check out the SCOTUS case of Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) where FDR convened a secret tribunal to try a gang of German saboteurs and than have them summarily executed.
…
Eleanor Roosevelt agreed. And William O. Douglas, a liberal’s liberal, was on the court at the time. The opinion in Quirin was unanimous.
Exactly. As I said, both collectivists and individualists can fall for authoritarianism. FDR was no exception, and neither were many liberal justices. That has little to do with what’s going on today though, as the authoritarians are almost entirely all on the right.
Jimmy Carter left office a failure. His energy policy can be summed up as a “make Americans suffer” effort. Turn down thermostats and put on sweaters and learn to live with less. Carter blamed his failures as a leader on the American people (the “malaise” speech), and he was tempermentally, philosophically, and experientially ill-suited to be President.
He still wasn’t the cause of Al Qaeda. You can try to misdirect and dissemble all you want, but your claim that Jimmy Carter is responsible for Al Qaeda’s formation is one of the dumbest things I’ve read in a while.
Clinton was a poll-driven President. If he could be convinced that an election could be won by rounding up people and jailing them, he’d do it in a heart beat; the man has no convictions and thinks only with his Johnson.
Please, Clinton was no angel, but compared to the current President, he was George Washington and Abe Lincoln rolled into one.
Hillary, on the other hand, is the Dick Nixon of our time. She lusts for the office such that she will eventually squash her Democratic opposition like so many bugs, her machine is that powerful.
We’ll see about that. I’m not a fan of Hillary, but if I could press a button and have her be president today instead of the delusional nut we’re being led by now, I’d be jumping up and down on that thing.
Anything else???
Yeah, can you please give us more of your views on how to win the war on terror so that I can keep showing you how similar you are to Stalin?
Thanks!
37 Piper
I know you are, but what am I?
@85
Which Clinton Wars are you talking about? As for Kosovo, I actually argued against intervention (I used to be more of a conservative libertarian then). If you’re talking about the idiots who impeached him, then yeah, those nutjobs are the core of the authoritarian right wing today.
@83 … nothing new here. You seem incapable of discussing any facts. Boring.
As for the Rove Monument, I am disturbed. Here we librals go to all the trouble of erecting a huge monument to your guy and you do not even care enough about the GOP to visit its only monument in Seattle??? Tsk task.
I do think a few mg. of Alimbal might help.
Remember .. take 2 Alimbals, the mauve tablets, before bed and do not have sex that night! The reality might overwhelm you! I understand one person with your condition took a Viagra and a Limbal before having sex at one of those Republican hangouts on Aurora? The guy ran out of the motel room claiming he had seen the light and converted to Hari Krishna!
It is better to lay of sex. with or without viagra, until reality returns .. about a week I am told.
Horowitz accuses academics of intlerance.
Hitler accused academics of intolerance.
Conclusion: Howrowitz is like Hitler.
It’s inescapable…
“[Hillary Clinton] lusts for the office such that she will eventually squash her Democratic opposition like so many bugs, her machine is that powerful.”
Funny how this fella/gal Piper is such a a frustrated op-ed writer, as so many wingnuts seem to be. He/she wants to post all of his/her conclusions without ever citing a source of fact.
Hillary Clinton is a well-connected centrist Senator from a powerful and populous State who has inherited the donor list from a twice-elected president and has the highest name recognition in the race. All weirdo conspiracy theories about her “lust” and her “machine” (propaganda though it is to used such loaded terms) aside, it’s not at all surprising that she’s doing well in the national polls 15 months ahead of the elections. It would be surprising if she were not. The primaries will be another matter.
88 Lee
t was the impeachment frenzy I was talking about. Back then I posted in the US Politics forum at Bianca’s (lost forver now).
I was in Italy shortly before we intervened in Kosovo and it was interesting that the Italians were literally begging the US to step in. Everyone still believed in the power of the US to do good back then. Well, everyone but DeLay, Lott, and Armey.
BTW, to Piper Scott @76:
Bill Moyers doesn’t take public or PBS money for his show. It all comes from private foundations, and I think one corporate donor. He’s been outspoken about getting PBS away from public money to avoid the kind of government control over content that the Bush administration has tried to exert over PBS since they got into office.
Here’s what Moyers said in an interview with Amy Goodman recently:
http://www.democracynow.org/ar.....038;tid=25
PBS has been a marvelous source of creativity and alternative information, Amy, but it will never achieve its full potential until is slips the tether of government support. Only 17% of PBS’s budget comes from Congress, but that 17% compromises the system so much that unconsciously people know that there are places you can’t go, there are things you don’t do. And we serve a sort of centrist role here. I’m fortunate. I don’t take public — my new series does not have public money in it. I didn’t take any money from CPB or any money from PBS. I raised it all from foundations and corporations that believe in the independence of journalism. I am independent. But until PBS finds a way — has it own trust fund, no longer has to go up with its cup out to Congress, it’s not going to achieve its full potential, although I take my hat off to my colleagues throughout the system, because they do the best job they can.
RE 48: “Since an essential tenet of conservative thought is individual liberty and private property….”
Name one thing that George W. Bush has done to protect or enhance individual liberty.
As for ‘private property’, this administration is protecting the shady lenders of the late-great housing bubble — not the victims.
@83
Haven’t caught the Rove Monument. Don’t generally venture into Seatlle unless accompanied by my personal military detachment fully armed to the teeth.
How big a pussy do you have to be to be worried about crime in Seattle?
Carter wasn’t merely a bad salesman as you imply. He tried to sell a bad PRODUCT! His policies failed, not just his presentation of them. And he urged Americans to conserve not because it was wise, but, rather, because we were out of everything, which the market proceeded to tell him was so much hooey.
He still didn’t create Al Qaeda.
Your comments about Fox New go back to my original point that liberals (in your heart, you know you are one) simply think they’re better than everyone. I’ve also watched enough CNN to cringe at the bias I see there.
If you see bias at CNN, but not at Fox News, then you live in a fairy tale world, and in a very real sense, we ARE better than you at discerning fact from fiction.
And perish the thought of ever doing anything with the NY Times editorial page save lining the birdcage with it…but the bird complains.
Like Thomas Friedman, who ignored the advice from his own books in order to defend the march to war in 2003? You still haven’t explained how the media is so liberal despite the fact that liberal voices were completely shut out by the media in the run-up to the Iraq War.
From what I hear, there’s plenty of oil yet to be extracted…from DOMESTIC sources. Shoot me if you will, but I’m all for drilling in ANWR and building more refineries (bottlenecks in supply artificially ratchet up price by making gasoline scarce…when was the last refinery built in the U.S.?).
Drilling in ANWR isn’t going to save us from anything. The only responsible path for us right now is to strive for real energy independence. I’m sure Stalin would agree with me. (sarcasm)
I’m also in favor of alternative sources such as wind-driven turbines…like the ones the Kingfisher of Liberals, His Corpundancy Teddy Kennedy, is fighting tooth and nail to prevent from being built seveal MILES off the coast of his home. He’s all for screwing up the lives of others, just don’t mess with his view. So much for noblesse oblige…
Ted Kennedy is a hypocrite! Whoa! That must mean everything Piper says is true, even the REALLY crazy stuff.
@66…I still think it’s regrettable that anyone thinks he’s so smart or so cock-sure of himself that he thinks it’s OK to call anyone else “stupid” in a debate.
I’m calling you stupid for a very simple reason. You are stupid. Anyone who thinks that CNN is more biased than Fox News is stupid. Anyone who thinks that Jimmy Carter is responsible for Al Qaeda is stupid. Anyone who thinks that Stalin and Hitler have more in common with the more pacifistic side in America’s political divide is stupid. Anyone who questions whether or not Jose Padilla was tortured and makes it clear that he supports his detention, while also claiming that his political opponents are more like Stalin, is stupid. Deal with it. As I said before, I have little patience with people who believe in fairy tales.
To do so is a demonstration of both an inability to think on your feet (or with your keyboard) and a paucity of ideas.
If you think I have a paucity of ideas, then bring it. Don’t go crying to your mommy because someone who knows more than you demonstrated it and called you stupid to rub it in.
If you’re so angry and filled with bile that you have to resort to that, perhaps it’s not conservatives who are in need of leafing through the DSM-IV (to be replaced by the DSM-V in 2012).
Our founding fathers were angry and filled with bile. And I’m glad they were.
If you want to play this game, then you have to learn to get as well as give…And keep a bit of a sense of humor about it all since there are more important things in life…like getting rid of that G.D. Jeff Weaver from the Mariner’s roster!!!
Bring it, then. And yeah, I don’t want to talk about the M’s. They’ve blown it.
@91
Yeah, Kosovo was a big factor in convincing me to take a step back from more extreme libertarianism. I was only 23 then… :)
@86 Lee…
You should know that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and he went so far as to have members of the Maryland legislature imprisoned for their pro-secessionist views.
Don’t forget, that all during the Stalin era, it was the American left who were his apologists. Google Walter Duranty…and cringe.
Ex Parte Quirin isn’t, IMHO, bad law, but it is law…What was weird about the liberal response to cases such as Padilla’s and the detainees at Gitmo was their inability to understand much about both American history and the rules of warfare. In al-Quida, we face an enemy that’s stateless (Taliban sponsorship in Afghanistan doesn’t count) all the while engaged in acts of war against us. What are we to do? Mirandize them and offer a public defender?
Here’s something sobering to consider: Since 9/11, there hasn’t been a successful terrorist attack against a target in the United States.
Tell me, chaps, just what is it worth to you to keep that string alive? What risks are you willing to take? To borrow a phrase from the Enquirer (mostly read by Democrats), “Enquiring minds want to know.”
Had there been no Jimmy Carter incompetence vis a vis Brezhnev, there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan, hence no fertile ground for the incubation of al-Quida and its look-alikes.
Karl Rove’s image will soon appear on U.S. currency of all denominations.
The E.U. is considering changing the name of Europe to Eurove since all wisdom and virtue worth knowing come from the mouth of Karl Rove.
I know for a fact that the children (what few there are, SJ’s Viagra notwithstanding) of liberals dream in their beds of becoming just like Karl Rove.
Did your mother love you, Lee? It’s hard to tell…
SJ…The erection you get from looking at the Rove Monument? If it lasts longer than four hours, consult your physician. I can see it now…you and Karl Rove in two separate claw-footed tubs on a hill overlooking a peaceful orchard holding hands. Jimmy Carter will be your towel boy.
The Piper
@94 Lee…
Just caught this, “Our founding fathers were angry and filled with bile. And I’m glad they were.”
NOT!
The Founders where products of the 18th-Century enlightenment, and the lens through which they viewed the world was one of reason. They thought and debated their way through separation from Great Britain and the formation of a new country, including the drafting of the Constitution.
Jefferson, who I freely poke fun at, authored not an angry and bile-filled Declaration of Independence, but a reasoned statement of proof in favor of breaking away from the mother country.
Many of the really angry men of the time – Patrick Henry and Tom Paine, for example – were pretty much excluded from such deliberations on account of well-deserved reputations for hot tempers.
The first victims of any revolution are the revolutionaries.
The Piper
@96
You should know that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and he went so far as to have members of the Maryland legislature imprisoned for their pro-secessionist views.
Yes, and he later regretting doing it. But if there was any episode in American history where this was acceptable, it was the civil war. I still don’t believe it made his decision right though.
Don’t forget, that all during the Stalin era, it was the American left who were his apologists. Google Walter Duranty…and cringe.
And as I’ve already mentioned several times in this thread, the makeup of the American left and right is actually quite different than even 10 years ago, let alone from the time Stalin was around.
Ex Parte Quirin isn’t, IMHO, bad law, but it is law…What was weird about the liberal response to cases such as Padilla’s and the detainees at Gitmo was their inability to understand much about both American history and the rules of warfare. In al-Quida, we face an enemy that’s stateless (Taliban sponsorship in Afghanistan doesn’t count) all the while engaged in acts of war against us. What are we to do? Mirandize them and offer a public defender?
If we want to win the war on terror, we have to. The reason that this country has been able to maintain stability so well is because of the central tenets of our justice system. It’s foolish to believe that in order to do that worldwide, that there are different principles involved. The secular judicial system we’ve developed works for a reason. I realize that in certain areas, this won’t be possible for some time, but that’s the goal you work towards. What happened with Padilla is a disgrace to this country and a serious affront to the principles of conservatism that were essential to the founding of this country.
Here’s something sobering to consider: Since 9/11, there hasn’t been a successful terrorist attack against a target in the United States.
Of course not. For one, we’re paying much closer attention to threats. Two, most people in the Arab world were appalled by 9/11 and the governments of the region looked at Afghanistan and finally saw what can happen to them when radicals have too much power in a society. And three, it takes a very long time to build up the operational capability to pull off such an attack, and our geographic isolation from the Middle East and Europe makes it even harder. But the amount of people around the world who WANT to do us harm has gone up significantly over the past 5 years.
Tell me, chaps, just what is it worth to you to keep that string alive? What risks are you willing to take? To borrow a phrase from the Enquirer (mostly read by Democrats), “Enquiring minds want to know.”
Please post some proof that the Enquirer is mostly read by Democrats. If you didn’t already know, they used to have a regular column running through 80s that was the prototype for what eventually became the themes of right-wing talk radio.
As for keeping that string alive, we’re doing just about everything we possibly can to bring upon another major attack – from antagonizing the rest of the world to upping our military expenditures to ignoring homeland security needs.
Had there been no Jimmy Carter incompetence vis a vis Brezhnev, there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan, hence no fertile ground for the incubation of al-Quida and its look-alikes.
Absolute baloney. I encourage you to read The Looming Tower, which gives the history of Al Qaeda. The invasion of Afghanistan was not the root cause of anyone’s radicalization, and even if your crazy theories about Carter and Brezhnev were true, Al Qaeda still would have formed as a response to our support of Israel and our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia.
Did your mother love you, Lee? It’s hard to tell…
She did. And your mother loved me last night several times.
@97
The Founders where products of the 18th-Century enlightenment, and the lens through which they viewed the world was one of reason. They thought and debated their way through separation from Great Britain and the formation of a new country, including the drafting of the Constitution.
Um, one can use reason and still be angry. In fact, having the ability to use reason in a world of people who can’t is often a common reason for being angry.
Jefferson, who I freely poke fun at, authored not an angry and bile-filled Declaration of Independence, but a reasoned statement of proof in favor of breaking away from the mother country.
And if I were to send a document to the President right now airing my grievances, I would send a well-mannered and well-reasoned essay. But because I’m arguing with a buffoon on the comment thread of a blog, I don’t really care.
Many of the really angry men of the time – Patrick Henry and Tom Paine, for example – were pretty much excluded from such deliberations on account of well-deserved reputations for hot tempers.
But arguably no one was more right at more things than Thomas Paine was.
Edmund (NEVER Eddie) Burke….
Unearthed from the Burke archives:
Dear Eddie,
So sorry to hear about the unfortunate death of your son, but really, turning down a shot at royalty? Just what kind of whig are you? Anyway, I heard about the 2,500 pounds, and write to remind you of those nags you bet on recently that couldn’t even pass muster at a glue factory. Please be so kind as to clear up the arrears on your account.
With Greatest Regard,
Oliver Wembly, esq.
yr. Obedient Bookie
Well. There you have it, Piper me boy.
These neocon authoritarians actually have the GAY (Genetic Asinine Yearning) syndrome. It’s not a lifestyle choice, they’re actually born with it. So stop discriminating and hating them, they can’t help it.
@100 PTBAA…
Say what you like, but I’m not about to cover Burke’s bet…
The Piper
If conservatism is recognized as a disability, employers might have to accommodate such disability in the worplace under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The irony would be amusing given what most conservatives think about the ADA. As an employer, however, the prospect of having to hire and accommodate conservatives is frightening. I mean, how do you accommodate irrationality, paranoia, fact aversion, intellectual dishonesty, and other common conservative traits?
Let see ..
Piper thinks Jummy Carter founded el Qaeda, Tom Jefferson would today be a Bushite, the American revolution did not include terrorists, Stalin supported free speech, Karl Rove is regarded as ahero all over the known world, God is still making oil for Americans to burn, GWB has some idea of waht a victory is …..
Sorry, my little head can not deal with all this fantastic stuff. I will definitely stop by the Karl Rove Monument and sacrifice two doves so that our troops may win the war against tourism.
By the way, I gather piper is a lawyer? If I buy doves to sacrifice at the KRM, is that considered a deductible religious expense?
@103…PL
Don’t you accommodate it daily when you look in the mirror? Just checking.
The Piper
“Ex Parte Quirin isn’t, IMHO, bad law(sic?), but it is law…”
Disagree. It is bad law (I know, I know, even liberals get carried away in wartime), but fortunately it is pretty well nullifed by the 4th Geneva Convention, which, I remind you, is the law of the land.
ex disputor boobius, y’all.
@104…SJ
OK…Now you’ve pissed me off!!! Calling me the worst of all possible things…a #$%^&%&^()$^%$ LAWYER!
The last thing in the world I want to be is someone’s “papers draw upper.”
But I will sell you doves…hand raised from eggs laid at Karl Rove’s dove farm.
The Piper
@104
Piper thinks Jummy Carter founded el Qaeda, Tom Jefferson would today be a Bushite, the American revolution did not include terrorists, Stalin supported free speech, Karl Rove is regarded as ahero all over the known world, God is still making oil for Americans to burn, GWB has some idea of waht a victory is …..
Sorry, my little head can not deal with all this fantastic stuff. I will definitely stop by the Karl Rove Monument and sacrifice two doves so that our troops may win the war against tourism.
Hahaha! Oh my god, have we been treated to a buffet of crazy today or what…whew!
“Say what you like, but I’m not about to cover Burke’s bet…”
And the associated 200 years of accummulated interest? I understand. After all, the GOP is the party of runaway public debt, and as Bush noted about his political legacy, by the time the bills comes due, he’ll be dead.
Must be fun being a free marketeer, eh? No responsibilities.
Piper,
Thanks for stopping by today and entertaining us.
“But I will sell you doves…hand raised from eggs laid at Karl Rove’s dove farm.”
Karl Rove lays eggs?
I’m still waiting for the whopper about how Jimmy Carter encouraged Brezhnev to invade Afghanistan. I know the one about how Bush I inadvertently (?) gave a green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait, so in fairness we should hear the wingnut “it’s Carter’s fault” version, too.
You birds ain’t seen nothin’ yet! Catch me tomorrow!
Jimmy Carter is personally responsible for both disco and the leisure suit, which, BTW, is an energy sin since they were all 100% polyester.
@106…PTBAA…
Not sure the 4th Geneva Convention overturns Ex Parte Quirin. A quick read of the treaty doesn’t guarantee access to civilian courts by spies and saboteurs, only courts with a certain level of due process. The secret tribunal in Quirin could arguably have meet those standards. In any event, the liberals of the time, FDR and all his New Deal Darlin’s, would have ignored any argument to the contrary because of the larger political and military point to be made.
And Brezhnev understood Carter’s comments about “inordinate fear of communism” and other remarks about spheres of influence as a green light to exercise hegemony over Afghanistan.
Remember Carter’s puny response? Cancelling participation in the summer Olympics? Too bad he didn’t have some of SJ’s Viagra to stiffen at least a little bit of him.
The Piper
@112
And Brezhnev understood Carter’s comments about “inordinate fear of communism” and other remarks about spheres of influence as a green light to exercise hegemony over Afghanistan.
So what, invading Afghanistan was a huge mistake for the Soviets that eventually led to their downfall. Are you admitting that Jimmy Carter won the Cold War?
Piper,
It must be scary to be so smart. Have you ever met a peer? Is there anyone you can talk to on your level? Let me be the first to say that it is an honor to blog with you.
Adoringly,
proud leftist
Peeper “Loons have long been considered by many North Americans as beautiful and special, symbolizing wilderness and solitude. Many cottage-goers, campers, and vacationers would feel their trip was incomplete without viewing a loon or listening to its haunting call. Loons are water birds like ducks, geese, and grebes, but they are classified separately by scientists.”
The difference between Josef Stalin, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush is the difference between a Loon, a Grebe, and a Duck. As far as innocents being casually killed to serve their ideological proprieties, none of these three has clean hands.
Stalin thought of himself as a bastion of political and social rectitude — a savior of humanity — not as evil.
piper @ 96:
Ex Parte Quirin isn’t, IMHO, bad law, but it is law…What was weird about the liberal response to cases such as Padilla’s and the detainees at Gitmo was their inability to understand much about both American history and the rules of warfare.
Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus and Roosevelt’s decision to try Germans by tribunal and not in an open court were ambiguous to say the least. Necessary? Maybe.
Here is an important distinction: They were actions that were done during a shooting war.
There was never any doubt that the war with the South and Nazi Germany would end. All parties threw the majority of their industrial power and money behind the war, so the duration would have to be finite just on the basis of economics alone.
How long will we be fighting a war against terror? How long is it going to be before the last insane maniac is cornered in cornered in an alley in Cairo (or Riyadh) and summarily shot? Are you sure? Is there not another cell hiding somewhere still plotting against us? Who will stand on the deck of the Missouri to sign the terms of surrender?
I am not thrilled with the prospect of surrendering civil rights during wartime, but I can be persuaded that like many things in the world, it’s an unpleasant necessity.
This is not a shooting war. This is taking a crisis as an excuse to make a power grab which could last into perpetuity should the parties concerned wish it to be so. That I refuse to sign off on.
@114…PL…
Yes, I have met a peer. I think he was a marquesse.
@112…Lee…
Carter, ever the sanctimonious prig that he was and is (don’t you hate prune-faced scolds who wag their finger in your face and tell you how they think you should behave???), was viewed by the Russians as weak, and we paid the price then and now. And his inviting the deposed Shah of Iran to come to the U.S. for medical treatment fomented the taking of hostages and the resulting crisis.
The guy couldn’t buy a break!
The Piper
Peeper: Carter’s response to the oil crisis that had been created by American Big Oil and their creation, OPEC, was to offer significant tax incentives to American consumers to invest in solar energy and other alternative energy sources.
Solar energy, as an example, was changing and improving on an almost daily basis.(I have personal knowledge of this should you care to challenge me.) That, Piper, was all reversed and squelched by Ronald Reagan. That was many decades ago.
My point is this: Had we continued to develop alternative energy sources over the decades since Carter’s Administration, there would be no need for us to be in the Middle East at this point in time.
And, furthermore, Piper, I know a good deal about political and historical research, and what I see from what you are saying is that you have thoroughly read a few highly polemical conservative books with some half-baked historical references in them.
I would sincerely appreciate it if you would reveal your skimpy bibliography and dispense with your pretense to thoughtfulness and intellectuality.
@37 This is a liberal blog. If you’re a wingnut and derive masochistic pleasure from being publicly ridiculed, you came to the right place.
@48 “Stalin a conservative? Perish the thought! Since an essential tenet of conservative thought is individual liberty and private property, Stalin is more the ultimate expression of liberal thinking and collectivization.”
Funny. I remember how the American media back in the 50s and 60s always referred to the “conservative old men” of the Soviet Politburo. “Conservative” as in “resistant to change.” That’s Republicans. They have their heads stuck in the 19th century. Specifically, in 19th-century laissez-faire capitalism, which history has proven again and again doesn’t work.
Now we have a new breed of Republicans, who call themselves “neocons,” who derive their inspiration from Trotsky. That’s right, today’s Republican “conservatives” are actually totalitarian-minded Trotskyite revolutionaries who want to overthrow our democratic government and individual liberties, and impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
History has a way of being deliciously ironic.
@51 You’re talking to a brick wall. Intolerance of people and ideas even slightly different from them is the guiding principle of wingnuttiness.
@118…SChoir…
Yours is an opinion to which you’re freely entitled. But I don’t engage in invective and innuendo, which is where we differ. Neener, neener…
As I recall the Carter years (much as I recall a nightmare), he called for regulation (stupid-ass 55 mph speed limits), curtailment, and control while Reagan campaigned and was elected on a platform of producing more energy and economic growth. Carter ignored the market place, and it came back to bite him in his Jimmy’s.
Again, again, again…Reagan was a success, Carter a failure. The jury’s out on Bush, but on Iraq, history will be kind to him in the same way it’s been kind to Lincoln, who was hated in his day even more than Bush. Consider, eleven-states tried to cop out of the Union just cause Lincoln got elected whereas only a few disgrunteled Hollywood types made empty threats (would that they had been honored) to move to Canada if Bush was elected.
But this is just my opinion…Of course, in a free society based upon respect for all citizens, you’re entitled to a different opinion.
The Piper
Finally, Roger uses the word liberal after hiding behind the softer sounding “progressive”
ha
# 122: “Neener, neener…” Oh,really?
3 122: You have not provided a single example to support your conclusions. But, for Authoritarians, it is the emotional feeling they get from a conclusion they like that makes all the difference, not the facts of the matter.
And his inviting the deposed Shah of Iran to come to the U.S. for medical treatment fomented the taking of hostages and the resulting crisis.
Yes, Carter messed up.* After all, it was Henry Kissinger (war criminal) and David Rockefeller (pretty much a useless rich guy) leading the charge to allow the Shah (human rights criminal) to seek medical help in the U.S. (he died anyway, picked the wrong healthcare system I guess).
But that is nothing compared to the deals that Reagan struck with the revolutionary Iranian regime, both before (arms for hostages) and after (arms for money for contras) his election. So Carter was weak, but Reagan, objectively, was a traitor.
And people such as yourself see fit to deify that grade B Hollywood actor?
Sigh.
*he struck the right note at the wrong time.
he called for regulation
Really? Let me count the ways….airlines, financial services, trucking, energy…all industries whose deregulation was initiated by the Carter administration.
Yes. It indeed must be nice to be a conservative without a memory, or the ability to read a little history, much less actually understand it. But who needs facts? If you’re right, you’re right? Right? After all, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”? The ends justify the means, right? Karl Rove lays eggs, etc., etc.
@117
Carter, ever the sanctimonious prig that he was and is (don’t you hate prune-faced scolds who wag their finger in your face and tell you how they think you should behave???), was viewed by the Russians as weak, and we paid the price then and now.
You just claimed that Carter was the reason the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which led to their downfall. How did we “pay the price for that?” And how exactly are we paying the price for it now? Are you even trying to make sense any more?
And as far as telling us how we should behave, who is the only President in the modern era who has ever run with marijuana decriminalization on his platform (and agreeing with folks like Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley)?
And his inviting the deposed Shah of Iran to come to the U.S. for medical treatment fomented the taking of hostages and the resulting crisis.
Please. I know you never will, but I suggest you pick up Kenneth Pollack’s book on Iran, The Persian Puzzle. He explains very well how Nixon’s policy of propping up the shah while ignoring his civil rights abuses is what created the environment for the 1979 revolution. Carter inherited that disaster from his predecessors. And Pollack is far from a liberal.
@122
The jury’s out on Bush, but on Iraq, history will be kind to him in the same way it’s been kind to Lincoln, who was hated in his day even more than Bush.
First of all, Lincoln was not hated in his day the way Bush was. Bush is hated worldwide. Lincoln was hated by southern slaveowners. Also, people tend to look more favorably upon leaders who win civil wars in their own country than those who start civil wars in other countries.
Not sure the 4th Geneva Convention overturns Ex Parte Quirin.
Well, yes it does. That makes me the winner, right? Here. Take a look from the same Wikipedia article you cut and pasted from:
“The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission … is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States.” Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[9]”
“First of all, Lincoln was not hated in his day the way Bush was.”
Well, maybe not world wide like the chimp, but distinctly disliked by the political opposition in the election of 1864. The GOP called the Copperheads ‘traitors’ (some things never change), but what cinched the deal was the fact that the Union was actually winning the war, and Lincoln won in a landslide.
Politicially, Nixon ran from the Viet Nam war after causing millions of deaths, and Bush is frankly losing the one in Iraq. The ability to win wars-just another birthright squandered by today’s GOP. The best they have done in 150 years is a draw (Korea).*
*Beating a weak state such as Spain in 1898 doesn’t qualify. And Granada and Panama? Please.
“Consider, eleven-states tried to cop out of the Union just cause Lincoln got elected whereas only a few disgrunteled Hollywood types made empty threats (would that they had been honored) to move to Canada if Bush was elected.”
I love false analogies. If this isn’t one, it’s still pretty funny. I mean, if this has any validity at all, I guess historians will look back at our times as pretty much irrelvant and inconsequential. Somehow, I do not believe George Bush will get off so lightly.
“(don’t you hate prune-faced scolds who wag their finger in your face and tell you how they think you should behave???),”
Like Sean Hannity?
Mention mental illness and along comes a mental case: this “piper” character.
More of the same old, same old right wing lies cribbed from right wing noise machine outlets.
And now the truth …..
I must deny the rumor that Mr. Piper is MY sock puppet.
He really as inane as
I make him out tohe seems to be.I met him tonite at the Karl Rove Memorial and he was really upset at the hard time we are giving him. He apologized to me and others for being an ass, telling me that it is the fault of his ARS.
Please do remember that he is disabled.
Goldy’s article is a deliberate attempt to troll. Little does Goldy know but most people’s opinions run the gamut across both liberal and conservative ideas. Since Goldy is trolling and does not realize that he is is either a total idiot or just trolling and having read several of his other efforts, it appears that he is the former.
Hey Goldy! Congratulations on proving you are a total idiot on your own blog!! (And yes this is an ad hominem attack because Goldy has yet to offer anything in his own defense based of facts!) Hmmm! Maybe we should call this Extreme Leftist Bias (ESB) or maybe (GBS) for Goldy’s Bull S^&%. Rather that try to discuss factual problems, all Goldy can apparently these days is ‘bash’ the his opposition rather than discuss the facts. Come on Goldy! Get on with being a real person rather the than a totally confused extreme leftist!
120 Roger – Definitions change over time and what and how different groups apply them over time. Your answer shows a definite problem with your age, you intellect, and how you are trying to apply a definition from 60 years ago.
“Now we have a new breed of Republicans, who call themselves “neocons,” who derive their inspiration from Trotsky. That’s right, today’s Republican “conservatives” are actually totalitarian-minded Trotskyite revolutionaries who want to overthrow our democratic government and individual liberties, and impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
History has a way of being deliciously ironic.”
Your opinions are so confused or else you were trying to in a failed attempt to be humorous!
YLB @ 133:
Look, Piper ain’t got much going for him, but at least he can string coherent sentences together.
I’ll take improvements over our regular trolls where I can get them.
me @ 136:
We have a gang in the Executive Branch now whom:
a) Really seem to believe in a top-down management style.
b) Get very irked with Congressional and/or judicial oversight and seem to be striving mightily to bypass it (in the name of efficient government, mind you. I don’t believe for a moment that lack of oversight would lead to unseemly practices, and neither does my friend Candide).
c) Have filled the bureaucracy with folks whose primary job seems to be the faithful implementation of policy from the top. This has solved a longstanding complaint about the rank-and-file in the civil service being intransigent and ignoring conservative-led policies and laws). Again, I believe the sole goal of this is to make government run better, which I feel liberals and conservatives can agree is an admirable goal.
I wouldn’t use words like Trotskyite or Bolshevik myself. Nor would I accuse the loyal implementers of Bush policy to be apparatchiks. That would be inflammatory and wrong.
My grandma always said something at times like this about “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…”.
But she was just a barely literate seamstress from Garlic Gulch. What the hell did she know about anything?
jsa – I am sure your Grandmother was a very wonderful and intelligent person!!
However, Roger’s opinion is a total misapplication of logic on how all Presidents in the past 15 some odd years have reacted to inquiries from Congress. They have all claimed ‘Executive Privileges’ but no one in Congress has invoked the third leg -The Supreme Court to get to the bottom of the problem. Again, Roger has made some compelling discussions on a lot of different subjects, but this is not one of them.
# 136: Roger is correct and you are mis-informed.
#139: Why do you put your garbled crap on this blog? “Roger’s opinion is a total misapplication of logic ….”
You are not denying the correctness of Roger’s logic, you are simply carping that in this instance logic would be ‘misapplied’?
Do you even think about what you are saying?
I sat right behind Gen. Petraeus today. He seemed very nervous to me. That soldier suit of his is sinmething else .. so many ribbons! Reminds me of playing dress up at a gay bar . bit hen I am only a Pooka and do not understand the humans practice of clothing oneself.
Did you know the good General employs a pooka in Iraq? Well, of course no one employs a pooka, but Iraq has a lot of pookas left over from the Saddam days. One of us hangs around the gernal a lot .. the sakad bar at the officers mess is one of the few aces in Iraq we can get fresh carrots,
Any how, once the general got to know “his pooka” the pooka naturally introduced the General to Sattar Abu Risha,the new warlord of Anwar. The meeting went well, I am told. Two such practical men! The poka tells me that Gen. petraeus stayed in the Sheik’s tent that noght and was well “entertained.”
The general’s pooka (his name is classified I am afraid) also told me that the meeting between President Bush and Shiek Sattar did not go well. Mr. Bush made several comments s about Shia harem girls that offended the deeply muslim highway man resented even though he is Sunni. I understand the General tried to warn Mr, Bush not to make ethnic jokes, but as you know The POTUS does not take “Davey” seriously on matters of state.
Fortunately, the Sheik relaized that Mr. Bush is not to be taken seriously.
SeattleJew
@142
Dude, I don’t know how you do it, but you actually enjoy the ridiculousness of these comment threads more than I do.
Harvey does have a wry sense of humor. That is why we get along so well.
BTW, did you know he is a long term Republican? Since Jefferson’s time he tells me! I don’t know what this means since AFIK pooka are not citizens but Harvey tells me he knew Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Bush ain’t no Republican.
Who woulda known?
It’s always better to laugh at life’s absurdity Lee.
SJ and Harvey do a good job of this.
If you take this too seriously, you’ll lose your mind, and to no good end.
@144
Oh I know. That’s why I like doing Effin Unsound. It keeps me sane. :)
me @ 139:
I’ve trashed a couple of long messages trying to explain my point.
If it were just the relationship between the Executive and Congress I would agree with you. That conflict is literally as old as the Republic.
The problem is much more pervasive than that and can be seen in how the White House relates with the bureaucracy that sits underneath them in the Executive branch.
It is an effort to make a top down structure where orders come from On High and get executed below. This is what Rog is getting at. I’d say it’s unhealthy in a democracy, but frankly it’s unhealthy in any large organization. Nobody is smart enough to grasp everything that is going on in an org of more than 1000 or so people and dictate from the top down.
As for not asking the Supremes to rule on executive privlege, I am not surprised. The folks that head up Congress are crafty old men and women. Presidents come and go. There are Republicans and Democrats who sit there, and the congress and the executive need each other to pass legislation. If the Supreme Court strips or reduces executive privlege, it’s not gone just for the Bush white house. It’s gone forever.
Piper:
Stalin was a thug and opportunist, a minor player in the Revolution, who turned the experiment of Communism into a garden-variety authoritatianism dressed up in the ideology of Lenin.
And would Burke even recognize today’s American (Bushie) Conservatism in comparison to the principles he championed?
By today’s standards, Burke would be largely dismissed by the modern Right as ‘just another liberal surrender monkey’.