Right wing outrages

[Guest Paul]

BushBacker's post invites commentary. Tragically, this isn't a polemic. It's the truth.

1. The radical right in America has no regard for the truth. They make accusations like the one BushBacker just made against the ACLU, which are not true. The right wing doesn't care. Whether it's lambasting their perceived enemies or cooking up phony reasons to go to war or denying global warming, the right wing doesn't care about the truth. They only care that their ugly biases are reinforced in the small confines of their own minds.

2. The radical right is more interested in whether Bob gives Harry a wedding ring than whether Grandma has enough to eat or enough money for her medications. They're more interested in looking like tough guys than in whether seven billion people will have clean air and water fifty years from now, and if you call them on that they'll call you a limp-wristed lefty. They're more interested in taking the toughest possible stance against some Arab, it doesn't matter which one, than in conducting an intelligent war on terror or truly keeping our country safe.

3. The radical right has made ethical and moral perversion an art form. They don't care how many people are killed in the war, how many people starve because the world hasn't begun to think about how to address resource allocation among seven billion people (and counting), or whether people they don't agree with have the right to due process if accused of a crime. They see no problem ripping the US Constitution to shreds, except of course to turn the Second Amendment into something it was never intended to be and legally never has been.

4. The radical right doesn't care about civil liberties, with the sole exception of owning as many arms and munitions as some paranoid nut may choose to collect. The radical right talks about freedom, but is completely unconcerned with the constitutional system, which makes that freedom possible.

5. The radical right is the first group of people to shout about moral perversion, but in fact their own radical agenda is the worst and most radical perversion of all.

BushBacker's false accusation against the ACLU in its defense of Wiccans who merely want their religious symbol on their loved one's grave merits a good rant. This is the truth, which is more than we can say for the attack on the ACLU. People are entitled to their own opinions, but I'm sick of the constant lying, and ugliness, from the radical right. I'm far from alone.

[Guest Guest]

BushBacker's post invites commentary. Tragically, this isn't a polemic. It's the truth.

1. The radical right in America has no regard for the truth. They make accusations like the one BushBacker just made against the ACLU, which are not true. The right wing doesn't care. Whether it's lambasting their perceived enemies or cooking up phony reasons to go to war or denying global warming, the right wing doesn't care about the truth. They only care that their ugly biases are reinforced in the small confines of their own minds.

2. The radical right is more interested in whether Bob gives Harry a wedding ring than whether Grandma has enough to eat or enough money for her medications. They're more interested in looking like tough guys than in whether seven billion people will have clean air and water fifty years from now, and if you call them on that they'll call you a limp-wristed lefty. They're more interested in taking the toughest possible stance against some Arab, it doesn't matter which one, than in conducting an intelligent war on terror or truly keeping our country safe.

3. The radical right has made ethical and moral perversion an art form. They don't care how many people are killed in the war, how many people starve because the world hasn't begun to think about how to address resource allocation among seven billion people (and counting), or whether people they don't agree with have the right to due process if accused of a crime. They see no problem ripping the US Constitution to shreds, except of course to turn the Second Amendment into something it was never intended to be and legally never has been.

4. The radical right doesn't care about civil liberties, with the sole exception of owning as many arms and munitions as some paranoid nut may choose to collect. The radical right talks about freedom, but is completely unconcerned with the constitutional system, which makes that freedom possible.

5. The radical right is the first group of people to shout about moral perversion, but in fact their own radical agenda is the worst and most radical perversion of all.

BushBacker's false accusation against the ACLU in its defense of Wiccans who merely want their religious symbol on their loved one's grave merits a good rant. This is the truth, which is more than we can say for the attack on the ACLU. People are entitled to their own opinions, but I'm sick of the constant lying, and ugliness, from the radical right. I'm far from alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But whom is the first person to shout at the Board Of Education Meeting about the made up injustices done to his childlike son, Paul LaClair.

[Stixx3969]

BushBacker's post invites commentary. Tragically, this isn't a polemic. It's the truth.

1. The radical right in America has no regard for the truth. They make accusations like the one BushBacker just made against the ACLU, which are not true. The right wing doesn't care. Whether it's lambasting their perceived enemies or cooking up phony reasons to go to war or denying global warming, the right wing doesn't care about the truth. They only care that their ugly biases are reinforced in the small confines of their own minds.

2. The radical right is more interested in whether Bob gives Harry a wedding ring than whether Grandma has enough to eat or enough money for her medications. They're more interested in looking like tough guys than in whether seven billion people will have clean air and water fifty years from now, and if you call them on that they'll call you a limp-wristed lefty. They're more interested in taking the toughest possible stance against some Arab, it doesn't matter which one, than in conducting an intelligent war on terror or truly keeping our country safe.

3. The radical right has made ethical and moral perversion an art form. They don't care how many people are killed in the war, how many people starve because the world hasn't begun to think about how to address resource allocation among seven billion people (and counting), or whether people they don't agree with have the right to due process if accused of a crime. They see no problem ripping the US Constitution to shreds, except of course to turn the Second Amendment into something it was never intended to be and legally never has been.

4. The radical right doesn't care about civil liberties, with the sole exception of owning as many arms and munitions as some paranoid nut may choose to collect. The radical right talks about freedom, but is completely unconcerned with the constitutional system, which makes that freedom possible.

5. The radical right is the first group of people to shout about moral perversion, but in fact their own radical agenda is the worst and most radical perversion of all.

BushBacker's false accusation against the ACLU in its defense of Wiccans who merely want their religious symbol on their loved one's grave merits a good rant. This is the truth, which is more than we can say for the attack on the ACLU. People are entitled to their own opinions, but I'm sick of the constant lying, and ugliness, from the radical right. I'm far from alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Paul,

I couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately, if they possed any logic or reasoning they would be ashamed but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Bryan]

BushBacker's post invites commentary. Tragically, this isn't a polemic. It's the truth.

1. The radical right in America has no regard for the truth. They make accusations like the one BushBacker just made against the ACLU, which are not true.

What kind of credibility are you supposed to have after linking us to that political action [site] (supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools) with its two prominent lies?

Lies are normal on both sides in politics, unfortunately. There's little excuse to generalize about one side or the other unless you simply mean to use a second wrong to make things right.

The right wing doesn't care. Whether it's lambasting their perceived enemies or cooking up phony reasons to go to war or denying global warming, the right wing doesn't care about the truth.

And there's sufficient example right there.

What were the "phony reasons" to go to war? Don't tell me "weapons of mass destruction" because everybody relevant thought they had them (French, Russians, Italians, and probably Saddam Hussein himself).

The denying global warming thing again, eh? Where's the example?

They only care that their ugly biases are reinforced in the small confines of their own minds.

Show us the expanse of your mind by backing up your claims above. Until then, you've got no credibility on this issue, so stuff a sock in it.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Guest]

Somewhere Joe McCarthy is smiling. His technique still works.

Tell your lies iften enough and mix in a litle fear and you can get pretty far......................until people catch on.

BushWanker buys this crap like a bass on a minnow.

[Bern]

There is irony that the far right which worships the 2nd Amendment has no problem disregarding the rest of the constitution.

And what is the point of them having all those guns? They blabber endlessly about their right to carry guns to protect our freedoms but you will never see them protest when our freedoms or civil liberties are being curtailed.

If anything, when suggestions are made to curtail civil liberties, they lead the parade by "yes, muzzle the critical media or lock up people without trial".

And lot of people do get so uptight when John want to marry Steve. But our failing health-care and failing social systems does not bother them. 1/2 of bankruptcies are now due to people who can't pay their health care bills even though most had insurance, people who worked their whole lives and lost everything due to sickness.

Its sad and ridiculous when you have fundraisers at the local Kiwanis or Fire House to pay for Johnny's cancer bill. We have to beg to pay for Johnny's bills? Bills that would be taken care of automatically in any other first world country.

[Guest Guest]

But whom is the first person to shout at the Board Of Education Meeting about the made up injustices done to his childlike son, Paul LaClair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the injustices were made up, then why did the Board settle the case and commend Matthew for his efforts? We all know you'll make up an excuse. You right wingers always do. That's the point.

[Strife767]

But whom is the first person to shout at the Board Of Education Meeting about the made up injustices done to his childlike son, Paul LaClair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When exactly did Paul shout? And what did he shout?

[Guest Paul]

What kind of credibility are you supposed to have after linking us to that political action [site] (supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools) with its two prominent lies?

Lies are normal on both sides in politics, unfortunately.  There's little excuse to generalize about one side or the other unless you simply mean to use a second wrong to make things right.

And there's sufficient example right there.

What were the "phony reasons" to go to war?  Don't tell me "weapons of mass destruction" because everybody relevant thought they had them (French, Russians, Italians, and probably Saddam Hussein himself).

The denying global warming thing again, eh?  Where's the example?

Show us the expanse of your mind by backing up your claims above.  Until then, you've got no credibility on this issue, so stuff a sock in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Judgment is a major part of a mature life. People will judge these things for themselves.

In my lifetime I have watched in horror as public discourse has degenerated almost to the point of having disappeared. Whatever one thinks about Ronald Reagan's accomplishments, or lack of accomplishments as a president, his most notorious lasting legacy may have been in convincing the American people that conducting affairs of state and nation from popular biases was acceptable. I think it was David Stockman, his former budget director, who observed that Reagan left our country a little stupider for his having been president. I contend he made us a lot stupider. For more than a generation now, the very mention of a tax increase has been political suicide --- and yet this makes no sense at all given that governments must have revenues to function.

Of course, this was a development waiting to happen, following as it did on the heels of television. Most of the population has now been raised on instant gratification. We now have a culture of it, especially in America where we have been so wildly successful in material terms.

When Reagan came into office, the jury was out on whether television would transform our country for better or for worse. To my eyes the jury is no longer out on that question: it has made us worse. More impatient, more demanding, less willing to reason and think beyond a gut-level reaction to a sound bite --- stupider and more childish and more irresponsible in every way. There is plenty of excellent television, but tragically most people aren't watching it. They're rotting their minds with Survivor and American Idol. Rush Limbaugh makes them laugh at people and ideas they don't understand, so he must be telling the truth.

There was a time, not long before Reagan, when the American people understood and practiced the responsibilities of citizenship. Perhaps the apex of this was during World War II, when an entire nation pulled together in shared sacrifice to defeat a truly evil enemy. What that generation failed to understand later was that it could not demand the same sacrifices for the sake of sacrifice itself --- that is how we ended up in Vietnam. My generation wasn't going to be told that our parents wanted a better life for us than they had for themselves, only to be sent off to die in an unjust and unnecessary war. Tragically, the national mood turned somber and turned inward. Idealism died and self-absorption took its place.

The radical right wing thrives on this discontent. Starve the beast. Make government the enemy. Call idealism naive. The system can't function without whole-hearted support from and widespread, enthusiastic participation of the people. The right has systematically torn down much of what made America America. They have destoyed the social fabric of mutual trust and shared ideals that made us a great nation. Call a name, shout a slogan and all is right with the world. The mindless ugliness right here on KOTW says it all: look where it's coming from. Yes, there has been some ugliness on our side too, and it isn't to be proud of, but the mindless ugliness has been almost exclusively on the other side.

We liberals have always championed process. It is important, but it isn't everything. Truth isn't just a process. It is also content. It is not enough to say that politicians have always lied. What is happening now, and has been happening ever since our country turned away from its idealism in the mid-1970s is the destruction of our political fabric --- the shared will that made it possible for our country to become great.

The kind of thinking (if you can call it that) that informs (if you can call it "informed") the political right is not sustainable. If it persists, it will destroy our national life as we have known it. Democracy, or whatever you call our system, depends on the good will of the people. Break that down with cries of "Kool-Aid drinker" and other mindless slogans (remember "In Harris we trust" after the 2000 election?), and we have a recipe for disaster. Brainless and completely unconcerned with the facts. Willing to make stuff up and cling to it as though it was the truth. Expect a free pass because after all, both sides are entitled to equal time. No they're not. If we don't get serious about the content of our political dialogue, what now remains of democracy in the United States will not survive. That is why it is imperative that we stop being nice to the radical right.

[Guest a proud american]

BushBacker's post invites commentary. Tragically, this isn't a polemic. It's the truth.

1. The radical right in America has no regard for the truth. They make accusations like the one BushBacker just made against the ACLU, which are not true. The right wing doesn't care. Whether it's lambasting their perceived enemies or cooking up phony reasons to go to war or denying global warming, the right wing doesn't care about the truth. They only care that their ugly biases are reinforced in the small confines of their own minds.

2. The radical right is more interested in whether Bob gives Harry a wedding ring than whether Grandma has enough to eat or enough money for her medications. They're more interested in looking like tough guys than in whether seven billion people will have clean air and water fifty years from now, and if you call them on that they'll call you a limp-wristed lefty. They're more interested in taking the toughest possible stance against some Arab, it doesn't matter which one, than in conducting an intelligent war on terror or truly keeping our country safe.

3. The radical right has made ethical and moral perversion an art form. They don't care how many people are killed in the war, how many people starve because the world hasn't begun to think about how to address resource allocation among seven billion people (and counting), or whether people they don't agree with have the right to due process if accused of a crime. They see no problem ripping the US Constitution to shreds, except of course to turn the Second Amendment into something it was never intended to be and legally never has been.

4. The radical right doesn't care about civil liberties, with the sole exception of owning as many arms and munitions as some paranoid nut may choose to collect. The radical right talks about freedom, but is completely unconcerned with the constitutional system, which makes that freedom possible.

5. The radical right is the first group of people to shout about moral perversion, but in fact their own radical agenda is the worst and most radical perversion of all.

BushBacker's false accusation against the ACLU in its defense of Wiccans who merely want their religious symbol on their loved one's grave merits a good rant. This is the truth, which is more than we can say for the attack on the ACLU. People are entitled to their own opinions, but I'm sick of the constant lying, and ugliness, from the radical right. I'm far from alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, a few months ago I asked BushBacker which ACLU was it that wrote an amicus brief on behalf of Oliver North and am still waiting for an answer.

I asked him a few weeks ago some questions and am still waiting for an answer.

Sadly, he only knows what the Fox Noise Channel says and is devoid of any real knowledge. Imagine, he claims to be a veteran but can't or won't answer the simple question of what war he served in.

When you take the oath of enlistment you swear to uphold the constitution. Perhaps he took a different oath whereby he only agreed to defend the parts of the constitution he agrees with. While there are some who don't like the ACLU I think it's because they don't understand what they do.

But, what do you expect. If they can't see how badly we were misled and lied to, how can they be expected to do anything other than defend what this fool is doing.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, a few months ago I asked BushBacker which ACLU was it that wrote an amicus brief on behalf of Oliver North and am still waiting for an answer.

I asked him a few weeks ago some questions and am still waiting for an answer.

Sadly, he only knows what the Fox Noise Channel says and is devoid of any real knowledge. Imagine, he claims to be a veteran but can't or won't answer the simple question of what war he served in.

When you take the oath of enlistment you swear to uphold the constitution. Perhaps he took a different oath whereby he only agreed to defend the parts of the constitution he agrees with. While there are some who don't like the ACLU I think it's because they don't understand what they do.

But, what do you expect. If they can't see how badly we were misled and lied to, how can they be expected to do anything other than defend what this fool is doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I completely agree. Civility is among the most important elements holding any peacable and democratic society together, but when people act like BushBacker and others in the radical right, it's time to take the gloves off. These people are completely disgusting. There is nothing redeemable about what they're doing. Sometimes the only response to those who break the rules of civilized society it to strike back. That's why we have prisons, and while I wouldn't argue that these people should go to prison, it's time to stop being nice to them.

[Bryan]

Judgment is a major part of a mature life. People will judge these things for themselves.

So, basically you hope that they haven't noticed that you linked to a set of lies so that you can maintain credibility.

In my lifetime I have watched in horror as public discourse has degenerated almost to the point of having disappeared. Whatever one thinks about Ronald Reagan's accomplishments, or lack of accomplishments as a president, his most notorious lasting legacy may have been in convincing the American people that conducting affairs of state and nation from popular biases was acceptable. I think it was David Stockman, his former budget director, who observed that Reagan left our country a little stupider for his having been president. I contend he made us a lot stupider. For more than a generation now, the very mention of a tax increase has been political suicide --- and yet this makes no sense at all given that governments must have revenues to function.

Reagan was actually quite bright, and his foreign policy was light-years better than Carter's.

For some reason you neglected to give us a single example of Reagan conducting foreign policy on the basis of bias. More than a coincidence?

Reagan watched the tax burden in the United States creep up rapidly during his lifetime. He realized that private enterprise was more efficient than a centrally planned economy, and knew that allowing the government to control an ever-increasing portion of the economy was a bad idea.

Yes, the government needs taxes to function. Reagan's message was that the government is getting plenty already. By cutting needless and inefficient government programs the tax burden should be decreased (along with taxation).

Simple--and smart.

http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPublications.n...6256B4D003D5B29

Of course, this was a development waiting to happen, following as it did on the heels of television. Most of the population has now been raised on instant gratification. We now have a culture of it, especially in America where we have been so wildly successful in material terms.

Not only instant gratification, but an entitlement mentality brought on first by FDR and then Johnson's "Great Society." Remember the war on poverty?

<didn't find the blame television part particularly interesting--sorry>

There was a time, not long before Reagan, when the American people understood and practiced the responsibilities of citizenship. Perhaps the apex of this was during World War II, when an entire nation pulled together in shared sacrifice to defeat a truly evil enemy. What that generation failed to understand later was that it could not demand the same sacrifices for the sake of sacrifice itself --- that is how we ended up in Vietnam. My generation wasn't going to be told that our parents wanted a better life for us than they had for themselves, only to be sent off to die in an unjust and unnecessary war. Tragically, the national mood turned somber and turned inward. Idealism died and self-absorption took its place.

Got your pinko-colored glasses on, or what?

Vietnam wasn't for the sake of sacrifice itself. The Soviet Union and Red China were perceived as expansionistic entities somewhat along the lines of Hitler--but with a great deal more patience. Post-USSR publication of Soviet documents has shown that Reagan was right about the Communists.

Ronald Reagan made things difficult for me in the mid 1980s. As a college student in New York City, I agreed with more or less everything my liberal friends thought of Reagan--except I thought he was right about the Soviet Union. No one had been so right before. To my friends, the words evil empire reflected the substance of Reagan's character: judgmental, tasteless, sanctimonious, imperious, impolitic. To me, they reflected the very character of the country, the USSR, where I had grown up, and even as a left-leaning 18-year-old in New York City, I was willing to forgive the American president almost anything for being the first head of state who finally spoke the truth.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=gessen060804

Vladislav Zubok’s and Constantine Pleshakov’s, Inside the Kremlin's Cold War: from Stalin to Khrushchev, Harvey Klehr's, John Haynes's, and Kyrill Anderson’s The Soviet World of American Communism, and Allen Weinstein's and Alexander Vassiliev's The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America: The Stalin Era

All of these works utilize de-classified Soviet sources to definitively prove the Soviet regime’s aggressive and expansionist designs against the West in the post-WWII period.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=208

The radical right wing thrives on this discontent. Starve the beast. Make government the enemy. Call idealism naive. The system can't function without whole-hearted support from and widespread, enthusiastic participation of the people.

The Framers considered the government the enemy much as Reagan did. That's why they limited the federal government's power so severely (too severely to even keep order at first; corrected with the Constitution). The Civil War grew federal power, and then FDR accelerated the process radically. When the power is centralized, the interests of the people (as individuals) are muted. That was the beauty of the federalist system. Local governments could respond to local needs.

The right has systematically torn down much of what made America America. They have destoyed the social fabric of mutual trust and shared ideals that made us a great nation. Call a name, shout a slogan and all is right with the world. The mindless ugliness right here on KOTW says it all: look where it's coming from. Yes, there has been some ugliness on our side too, and it isn't to be proud of, but the mindless ugliness has been almost exclusively on the other side.

That was ugly.

You don't read liberal blogs much, do you?

When do we get an example of how the right has systematically torn down much of what made America America? Was it when we went before Congress and claimed that U.S. soldiers routinely committed war crimes?

We liberals have always championed process. It is important, but it isn't everything. Truth isn't just a process. It is also content. It is not enough to say that politicians have always lied. What is happening now, and has been happening ever since our country turned away from its idealism in the mid-1970s is the destruction of our political fabric --- the shared will that made it possible for our country to become great.

You're a decade late. The country turned away from idealism in the 1960s as a culture. That's when the culture tried to reach beyond its moorings by experimenting with transcendental states (LSD and such) and alternative religions. The 1970s provided a capper when Nixon was caught doing wrong. That's when trust in the government began to seriously erode (and part of that owes to the power of journalism--but they'd already been practicing in Vietnam).

The kind of thinking (if you can call it that)

See, I'm the guy from the right. You're the liberal. I'm supposed to do the name-calling and personal attacks--remember? You're supposed to leave all that to me since you're above it as a liberal.

that informs (if you can call it "informed") the political right is not sustainable. If it persists, it will destroy our national life as we have known it. Democracy, or whatever you call our system, depends on the good will of the people. Break that down with cries of "Kool-Aid drinker" and other mindless slogans (remember "In Harris we trust" after the 2000 election?), and we have a recipe for disaster.

(Do mindless slogans like "Bush lied, people died," "GWB IS A WMD," "STOP BUSH - BEFORE HE KILLS AGAIN!" "GOVERNMENT: The ONLY THING That PROTECTS The POOR From The RICH," "OUTSOURCING - No Job Left Behind," "BUSH CHENEY - LEAVE NO CHILD A DIME,"--or a host of others--count at all?)

I don't remember the Harris one, actually. Google seemed to have a tough time remembering it, too.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22in...G=Google+Search

Brainless and completely unconcerned with the facts.

It's a good thing the left is so circumspect about that.

Willing to make stuff up and cling to it as though it was the truth. Expect a free pass because after all, both sides are entitled to equal time. No they're not. If we don't get serious about the content of our political dialogue, what now remains of democracy in the United States will not survive. That is why it is imperative that we stop being nice to the radical right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, Paul apparently suggests lifting the tenor of political dialog by being even nastier.

Priceless.

It probably means you won't back up any of your claims, either--right? That would be too nice.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Judgment is a major part of a mature life. People will judge these things for themselves.

In my lifetime I have watched in horror as public discourse has degenerated almost to the point of having disappeared. Whatever one thinks about Ronald Reagan's accomplishments, or lack of accomplishments as a president, his most notorious lasting legacy may have been in convincing the American people that conducting affairs of state and nation from popular biases was acceptable. I think it was David Stockman, his former budget director, who observed that Reagan left our country a little stupider for his having been president. I contend he made us a lot stupider. For more than a generation now, the very mention of a tax increase has been political suicide --- and yet this makes no sense at all given that governments must have revenues to function.

Of course, this was a development waiting to happen, following as it did on the heels of television. Most of the population has now been raised on instant gratification. We now have a culture of it, especially in America where we have been so wildly successful in material terms.

When Reagan came into office, the jury was out on whether television would transform our country for better or for worse. To my eyes the jury is no longer out on that question: it has made us worse. More impatient, more demanding, less willing to reason and think beyond a gut-level reaction to a sound bite --- stupider and more childish and more irresponsible in every way. There is plenty of excellent television, but tragically most people aren't watching it. They're rotting their minds with Survivor and American Idol. Rush Limbaugh makes them laugh at people and ideas they don't understand, so he must be telling the truth.

There was a time, not long before Reagan, when the American people understood and practiced the responsibilities of citizenship. Perhaps the apex of this was during World War II, when an entire nation pulled together in shared sacrifice to defeat a truly evil enemy. What that generation failed to understand later was that it could not demand the same sacrifices for the sake of sacrifice itself --- that is how we ended up in Vietnam. My generation wasn't going to be told that our parents wanted a better life for us than they had for themselves, only to be sent off to die in an unjust and unnecessary war. Tragically, the national mood turned somber and turned inward. Idealism died and self-absorption took its place.

The radical right wing thrives on this discontent. Starve the beast. Make government the enemy. Call idealism naive. The system can't function without whole-hearted support from and widespread, enthusiastic participation of the people. The right has systematically torn down much of what made America America. They have destoyed the social fabric of mutual trust and shared ideals that made us a great nation. Call a name, shout a slogan and all is right with the world. The mindless ugliness right here on KOTW says it all: look where it's coming from. Yes, there has been some ugliness on our side too, and it isn't to be proud of, but the mindless ugliness has been almost exclusively on the other side.

We liberals have always championed process. It is important, but it isn't everything. Truth isn't just a process. It is also content. It is not enough to say that politicians have always lied. What is happening now, and has been happening ever since our country turned away from its idealism in the mid-1970s is the destruction of our political fabric --- the shared will that made it possible for our country to become great.

The kind of thinking (if you can call it that) that informs (if you can call it "informed") the political right is not sustainable. If it persists, it will destroy our national life as we have known it. Democracy, or whatever you call our system, depends on the good will of the people. Break that down with cries of "Kool-Aid drinker" and other mindless slogans (remember "In Harris we trust" after the 2000 election?), and we have a recipe for disaster. Brainless and completely unconcerned with the facts. Willing to make stuff up and cling to it as though it was the truth. Expect a free pass because after all, both sides are entitled to equal time. No they're not. If we don't get serious about the content of our political dialogue, what now remains of democracy in the United States will not survive. That is why it is imperative that we stop being nice to the radical right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Stop being nice to the radical right" ?? You've "watched in horror" ??

Reading this mindless nonsense is comical. You get my vote for Poster Boy of the Loony Left.

[Guest BushBacker]

Paul, a few months ago I asked BushBacker which ACLU was it that wrote an amicus brief on behalf of Oliver North and am still waiting for an answer.

I asked him a few weeks ago some questions and am still waiting for an answer.

Sadly, he only knows what the Fox Noise Channel says and is devoid of any real knowledge. Imagine, he claims to be a veteran but can't or won't answer the simple question of what war he served in.

When you take the oath of enlistment you swear to uphold the constitution. Perhaps he took a different oath whereby he only agreed to defend the parts of the constitution he agrees with. While there are some who don't like the ACLU I think it's because they don't understand what they do.

But, what do you expect. If they can't see how badly we were misled and lied to, how can they be expected to do anything other than defend what this fool is doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"proud" ?? american , I don't respond to nonsense. Lay off the Kool-Aid, sober up, ask an intelligent question and I may respond.

[Bryan]

I think it was David Stockman, his former budget director, who observed that Reagan left our country a little stupider for his having been president.

Anyone who believed Paul on that point can count himself a little stupider for having read Paul's post.

Culture of Complaint is a call for the reknitting of a fragmented and over-tribalized America - a deeply passionate book, filled with barbed wit and devastating takes on public life, both left and right of center. To the right, Hughes fires broadsides at the populist demagogy of Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms and especially Ronald Reagan ("with somnambulistic efficiency, Reagan educated America down to his level. He left his country a little stupider in 1988 than it had been in 1980, and a lot more tolerant of lies").

http://www.biblio.com/books/32219534.html

Sounds like this is probably the book that Paul read that convinced him of the evil complaining culture of the dreaded Right Wing (the one he's been complaining about).

Can anybody see the irony ('barbed wit ... fires broadsides")?

[Guest Radagast]

Paul, a few months ago I asked BushBacker which ACLU was it that wrote an amicus brief on behalf of Oliver North and am still waiting for an answer.

I asked him a few weeks ago some questions and am still waiting for an answer.

Sadly, he only knows what the Fox Noise Channel says and is devoid of any real knowledge. Imagine, he claims to be a veteran but can't or won't answer the simple question of what war he served in.

When you take the oath of enlistment you swear to uphold the constitution. Perhaps he took a different oath whereby he only agreed to defend the parts of the constitution he agrees with. While there are some who don't like the ACLU I think it's because they don't understand what they do.

But, what do you expect. If they can't see how badly we were misled and lied to, how can they be expected to do anything other than defend what this fool is doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do any of you care what Bushbacker thinks? If the depth of his writings on this board are any indication, he doesn't think much at all.

As far as the radical right is concerned, there has been an ebb and flow to their viciousness over the decades. In the pre WWll days, they fought to keep the USA out of involvement in the war. Communists, or anyone they believed was a Communist (aka anyone who disagreed with them) was a long time target until the Soviet block fell apart. Soviet Communism was a fat ugly system that fell apart because it was too top heavy and too heavy handed. The right wingers rewrote history to give Ronald Reagan all the credit for 'bringing down the wall.' They've always been good at rewriting history to suit THEIR facts.

They tend to be a rather frustrated bunch who get their jollies by trying to get people they disagree with angry at them. They are like a spoiled brat who doesn't get his way and reacts by spouting vile comments and personal attacks. The old Rush Limbaugh formula of turning a discussion about issues to a discussion about personality has worked for almost two decades. It's made him and a bunch of 'angry' radio and now TV talk show wingers a lot of money. It's good entertainment but as public affairs discussion goes, its dishonest and morally bankrupt.

There was a day long ago when I would look forward to watching William F. Buckley and 'Firing Line' on PBS. It was a thoughtful show where issues were debated. I seldom agreed with Buckley, but I always respected him and what he had to say. The most popular conservatives, and to be fair many Liberals, in the media today, do not command that respect.

I fear that for this nation, this brand of media is producing a polarization that we are going to pay dearly for sometime in the future.

[Strife767]

"proud" ?? american , I don't respond to nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because the question doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's nonsense.

Grow a spine, admit you don't have the answer, and move on. No one's buying this BS.

[Guest Guest]

"Stop being nice to the radical right" ??  You've "watched in horror" ??

      Reading this mindless nonsense is comical. You get my vote for Poster Boy of the Loony Left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone who disagrees with you gets your vote, and you're the last person to call anyone mindless. Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?

[Guest Guest]

Why do any of you care what Bushbacker thinks? If the depth of his writings on this board are any indication, he doesn't think much at all.

As far as the radical right is concerned, there has been an ebb and flow to their viciousness over the decades. In the pre WWll days, they fought to keep the USA out of involvement in the war. Communists, or anyone they believed was a Communist (aka anyone who disagreed with them) was a long time target until the Soviet block fell apart. Soviet Communism was a fat ugly system that fell apart because it was too top heavy and too heavy handed. The right wingers rewrote history to give Ronald Reagan all the credit for 'bringing down the wall.' They've always been good at rewriting history to suit THEIR facts.

They tend to be a rather frustrated bunch who get their jollies by trying to get people they disagree with angry at them. They are like a spoiled brat who doesn't get his way and reacts by spouting vile comments and personal attacks. The old Rush Limbaugh formula of turning a discussion about issues to a discussion about personality has worked for almost two decades. It's made him and a bunch of 'angry' radio and now TV talk show wingers a lot of money. It's good entertainment but as public affairs discussion goes, its dishonest and morally bankrupt.

There was a day long ago when I would look forward to watching William F. Buckley and 'Firing Line' on PBS. It was a thoughtful show where issues were debated. I seldom agreed with Buckley, but I always respected him and what he had to say. The most popular conservatives, and to be fair many Liberals, in the media today, do not command that respect.

I fear that for this nation, this brand of media is producing a polarization that we are going to pay dearly for sometime in the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This generation of right wingers is especially virulent. I fear that we will pay the price for its folly very soon. In many ways we are already paying it.

[Bryan]

As far as the radical right is concerned, there has been an ebb and flow to their viciousness over the decades. In the pre WWll days, they fought to keep the USA out of involvement in the war.

You think that's radical? Or just vicious?

Communists, or anyone they believed was a Communist (aka anyone who disagreed with them) was a long time target until the Soviet block fell apart.

A target for what?

Soviet Communism was a fat ugly system that fell apart because it was too top heavy and too heavy handed. The right wingers rewrote history to give Ronald Reagan all the credit for 'bringing down the wall.' They've always been good at rewriting history to suit THEIR facts.

Electing Carter probably would have kept the Soviet Union propped up for a longer period of time--maybe even indefinitely (though Jimmy was ticked off and surprised when his buds at the Kremlin invaded Afghanistan).

Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence American elections.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3946

Ah for the good old days.

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

About Reagan: The military buildup in the U.S. was explicitly designed to ruin the USSR economically. And Reagan called for the Berlin Wall to come down starting way back when he debated RFK in 1967 (scroll down about 3/4).

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/reagan_kennedy_debate.asp

The truth is that liberals were taken completely by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union and couldn't bring themselves to give Reagan credit. Therefore, they had to go back and perform revisionist history to minimize Reagan's role.

At the famous Summit Meeting in Reykjavik Iceland in October 1986, Gorbachev practically begged Reagan to drop the SDI project. He offered to give in to all of the US demands on arms control in exchange for a promise to end "Star Wars". But Reagan refused. And I think that is when Gorbachev knew the "Cold War" was over and that the USSR had lost. At the time the US press described the summit as a "failure". They thought the purpose of the meeting was to reach an arms control agreement with the USSR.

Reagan saw things differently. To him the point of the meeting was to convince Gorbachev that the USSR was a lost cause.

http://www.bigissueground.com/history/blai...noverussr.shtml

Prague, 10 June 2004 (RFE/RL) -- Although Ronald Reagan's domestic legacy is still a matter of contention in the United States, many believe that his shining moment on the international stage was as one of the key actors who helped end the Soviet empire.

Reagan left office in January 1989, just before the wave of revolutions that swept across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union's dissolution. But few in the region doubt his crucial influence in triggering those events.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/...3b54dd74bf.html

You liberals need to get over there and explain to all those ex-communists that it wasn't Reagan. We right-wingers have got them fooled.

"I think that as far as history is concerned --- and he has already gone off into history -- he is a man who made an enormous contribution to creating the conditions for ending the Cold War -- perhaps even the decisive contribution," Gorbachev said

They tend to be a rather frustrated bunch who get their jollies by trying to get people they disagree with angry at them. They are like a spoiled brat who doesn't get his way and reacts by spouting vile comments and personal attacks. The old Rush Limbaugh formula of turning a discussion about issues to a discussion about personality has worked for almost two decades. It's made him and a bunch of 'angry' radio and now TV talk show wingers a lot of money. It's good entertainment but as public affairs discussion goes, its dishonest and morally bankrupt.

So, you're saying that it's the personalities of those nasty right-wingers that is the problem?

There was a day long ago when I would look forward to watching William F. Buckley and 'Firing Line' on PBS. It was a thoughtful show where issues were debated. I seldom agreed with Buckley, but I always respected him and what he had to say. The most popular conservatives, and to be fair many Liberals, in the media today, do not command that respect.

That's probably because politics is more related to party power dynamics these days--and that is primarily a Republican legacy (GOP control of Congress in the 1990s resulted in far fewer votes outside of party loyalty--on both sides).

I fear that for this nation, this brand of media is producing a polarization that we are going to pay dearly for sometime in the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have a history of duels to the death and a guy getting beaten with a cane in our national legislative past. You need not concern yourself unless one side becomes dissatisfied with the system to the point of trying to change it radically. Some democrats made noises like that after Bush beat Kerry in the 2004 election (secession of blue states).

I think if Congress changes a few of its rules (such as eliminating various types of secret votes), it will help keep the political process going. And the losers of elections need to learn to live with the results (even while preparing to win the next election and attempting to legitimately influence the political process).

[Guest 2smart4u]

You think that's radical?  Or just vicious?

A target for what?

Electing Carter probably would have kept the Soviet Union propped up for a longer period of time--maybe even indefinitely (though Jimmy was ticked off and surprised when his buds at the Kremlin invaded Afghanistan).

Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence American elections.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3946

Ah for the good old days.

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

About Reagan:  The military buildup in the U.S. was explicitly designed to ruin the USSR economically.  And Reagan called for the Berlin Wall to come down starting way back when he debated RFK in 1967 (scroll down about 3/4).

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/reagan_kennedy_debate.asp

The truth is that liberals were taken completely by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union and couldn't bring themselves to give Reagan credit.  Therefore, they had to go back and perform revisionist history to minimize Reagan's role.

At the famous Summit Meeting in Reykjavik Iceland in October 1986, Gorbachev practically begged Reagan to drop the SDI project. He offered to give in to all of the US demands on arms control in exchange for a promise to end "Star Wars". But Reagan refused. And I think that is when Gorbachev knew the "Cold War" was over and that the USSR had lost. At the time the US press described the summit as a "failure". They thought the purpose of the meeting was to reach an arms control agreement with the USSR.

Reagan saw things differently. To him the point of the meeting was to convince Gorbachev that the USSR was a lost cause.

http://www.bigissueground.com/history/blai...noverussr.shtml

Prague, 10 June 2004 (RFE/RL) -- Although Ronald Reagan's domestic legacy is still a matter of contention in the United States, many believe that his shining moment on the international stage was as one of the key actors who helped end the Soviet empire.

Reagan left office in January 1989, just before the wave of revolutions that swept across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union's dissolution. But few in the region doubt his crucial influence in triggering those events.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/...3b54dd74bf.html

You liberals need to get over there and explain to all those ex-communists that it wasn't Reagan.  We right-wingers have got them fooled. 

"I think that as far as history is concerned --- and he has already gone off into history -- he is a man who made an enormous contribution to creating the conditions for ending the Cold War -- perhaps even the decisive contribution," Gorbachev said

So, you're saying that it's the personalities of those nasty right-wingers that is the problem?

That's probably because politics is more related to party power dynamics these days--and that is primarily a Republican legacy (GOP control of Congress in the 1990s resulted in far fewer votes outside of party loyalty--on both sides).

We have a history of duels to the death and a guy getting beaten with a cane in our national legislative past.  You need not concern yourself unless one side becomes dissatisfied with the system to the point of trying to change it radically.  Some democrats made noises like that after Bush beat Kerry in the 2004 election (secession of blue states).

I think if Congress changes a few of its rules (such as eliminating various types of secret votes), it will help keep the political process going.  And the losers of elections need to learn to live with the results (even while preparing to win the next election and attempting to legitimately influence the political process).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, I can see why the defeatocrats are always arguing with you. You give them nothing but unspun facts. You KNOW defeatocrats can't handle unspun facts. You should consider throwing in a couple of lies occasionally to keep them happy.

[Guest Guest]

We have a history of duels to the death and a guy getting beaten with a cane in our national legislative past.  You need not concern yourself unless one side becomes dissatisfied with the system to the point of trying to change it radically.  Some democrats made noises like that after Bush beat Kerry in the 2004 election (secession of blue states).

I think if Congress changes a few of its rules (such as eliminating various types of secret votes), it will help keep the political process going.  And the losers of elections need to learn to live with the results (even while preparing to win the next election and attempting to legitimately influence the political process).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of that holds a candle to a self-indulgent population, rich beyond all historic precedent and spoon-fed entertainment in the guise of news by the mass media.

[Guest Radagast]

>>You think that's radical?  Or just vicious?<<

On Father Coughlin, the right wing darling in the decade before WWll. you decide:

"Like Hitler’s Brownshirts, the Christian Front was ostensibly organized to combat the ‘rising tide of Communism.’ All Jews,... liberals, New Dealers and labor organizations were called Communist; and since the Communist Revolution in America was scheduled to take place ‘any day now,’ the Christian Front–always under Coughlin’s inspiration and guidance—shouted that a private army was the only means to ‘save America.’ Coughlin filled the pages of Social Justice with Hitler’s sewer-spawned lies. He made direct use of Goebbels’ speeches, quoting the Nazi almost word-for-word.... He denounced the ‘poppycock of Democracy’ and branded Democracy as a version of Communism” (Under Cover, 1943).

>>A target for what?<<

Vicious personal attacks the typify the radical right wing

>>Electing Carter probably would have kept the Soviet Union propped up for a longer period of time--maybe even indefinitely (though Jimmy was ticked off and surprised when his buds at the Kremlin invaded Afghanistan).

Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence American elections.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3946

Ah for the good old days.

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

About Reagan:  The military buildup in the U.S. was explicitly designed to ruin the USSR economically.  And Reagan called for the Berlin Wall to come down starting way back when he debated RFK in 1967 (scroll down about 3/4).

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/reagan_kennedy_debate.asp

The truth is that liberals were taken completely by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union and couldn't bring themselves to give Reagan credit.  Therefore, they had to go back and perform revisionist history to minimize Reagan's role.

At the famous Summit Meeting in Reykjavik Iceland in October 1986, Gorbachev practically begged Reagan to drop the SDI project. He offered to give in to all of the US demands on arms control in exchange for a promise to end "Star Wars". But Reagan refused. And I think that is when Gorbachev knew the "Cold War" was over and that the USSR had lost. At the time the US press described the summit as a "failure". They thought the purpose of the meeting was to reach an arms control agreement with the USSR.

Reagan saw things differently. To him the point of the meeting was to convince Gorbachev that the USSR was a lost cause.

http://www.bigissueground.com/history/blai...noverussr.shtml

Prague, 10 June 2004 (RFE/RL) -- Although Ronald Reagan's domestic legacy is still a matter of contention in the United States, many believe that his shining moment on the international stage was as one of the key actors who helped end the Soviet empire.

Reagan left office in January 1989, just before the wave of revolutions that swept across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union's dissolution. But few in the region doubt his crucial influence in triggering those events.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/...3b54dd74bf.html

You liberals need to get over there and explain to all those ex-communists that it wasn't Reagan.  We right-wingers have got them fooled. 

"I think that as far as history is concerned --- and he has already gone off into history -- he is a man who made an enormous contribution to creating the conditions for ending the Cold War -- perhaps even the decisive contribution," Gorbachev said<<

All of your references are from right wing sources. Schweizer's story is from the Hoover Institute. They have little credibility in my book. The other references are from sources like Radio Free Europe that was set up as a propaganda unit of the CIA for US interests. Propaganda is hardly a source for facts.

Gorbachev's quote was just after Reagan died ... hell, even I was saying nice things about him then.

>>So, you're saying that it's the personalities of those nasty right-wingers that is the problem?

That's probably because politics is more related to party power dynamics these days--and that is primarily a Republican legacy (GOP control of Congress in the 1990s resulted in far fewer votes outside of party loyalty--on both sides).

We have a history of duels to the death and a guy getting beaten with a cane in our national legislative past.  You need not concern yourself unless one side becomes dissatisfied with the system to the point of trying to change it radically.  Some democrats made noises like that after Bush beat Kerry in the 2004 election (secession of blue states).<<

No one ever spoke about secession seriously, and you know it ... that's just nonsense. The only 'duel to the death' I recall was Burr -v- Hamilton. Our nation is supposed to be older and wiser now. I hear that some on the right want to have folks like me silenced as traitors and even executed. Hint: I won't go down alone, and if that is the kind of country the right wing wants, we may be headed in that direction. 

>>I think if Congress changes a few of its rules (such as eliminating various types of secret votes), it will help keep the political process going.  And the losers of elections need to learn to live with the results (even while preparing to win the next election and attempting to legitimately influence the political process).<<

Any Congress would have a tough time enforcing civility. There are some folks on the radio who should practice a little anger management. Promoting polarization is your right under the Constitution. However, it's end result could be beyond anyone's nightmare. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Bryan]

>>You think that's radical?  Or just vicious?<<

On Father Coughlin, the right wing darling in the decade before WWll. you decide:

"Like Hitler’s Brownshirts, the Christian Front was ostensibly organized to combat the ‘rising tide of Communism.’ All Jews,... liberals, New Dealers and labor organizations were called Communist; and since the Communist Revolution in America was scheduled to take place ‘any day now,’ the Christian Front–always under Coughlin’s inspiration and guidance—shouted that a private army was the only means to ‘save America.’ Coughlin filled the pages of Social Justice with Hitler’s sewer-spawned lies. He made direct use of Goebbels’ speeches, quoting the Nazi almost word-for-word.... He denounced the ‘poppycock of Democracy’ and branded Democracy as a version of Communism” (Under Cover, 1943).

Is that an example of what I asked you about, or the most radical example you could think of (not to limit your choices)?

"In the pre WWll days, they fought to keep the USA out of involvement in the war."

I don't even quite see how Coughlin's group was fighting to keep the USA out of involvement with the war, per se. He seems to have been focused on the threat of communism.

As it happens, Coughlin supported FDR's New Deal enthusiastically (what a great Republican!). He seems to have favored a form of socialist redistribution (common among Catholics, though Coughlin was an uncommon Catholic); the Nazis whom he admired were pegged as the National Socialists (National Socialist German Workers Party) in Germany, after all.

>>A target for what?<<

Vicious personal attacks the typify the radical right wing.

This is the spot where you give the examples of the viciousness, not where you merely turn the argument in on itself.

>>Electing Carter probably would have kept the Soviet Union propped up for a longer period of time--maybe even indefinitely (though Jimmy was ticked off and surprised when his buds at the Kremlin invaded Afghanistan).

Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence American elections.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3946

Ah for the good old days.

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

About Reagan:  The military buildup in the U.S. was explicitly designed to ruin the USSR economically.  And Reagan called for the Berlin Wall to come down starting way back when he debated RFK in 1967 (scroll down about 3/4).

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/reagan_kennedy_debate.asp

The truth is that liberals were taken completely by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union and couldn't bring themselves to give Reagan credit.  Therefore, they had to go back and perform revisionist history to minimize Reagan's role.

At the famous Summit Meeting in Reykjavik Iceland in October 1986, Gorbachev practically begged Reagan to drop the SDI project. He offered to give in to all of the US demands on arms control in exchange for a promise to end "Star Wars". But Reagan refused. And I think that is when Gorbachev knew the "Cold War" was over and that the USSR had lost. At the time the US press described the summit as a "failure". They thought the purpose of the meeting was to reach an arms control agreement with the USSR.

Reagan saw things differently. To him the point of the meeting was to convince Gorbachev that the USSR was a lost cause.

http://www.bigissueground.com/history/blai...noverussr.shtml

Prague, 10 June 2004 (RFE/RL) -- Although Ronald Reagan's domestic legacy is still a matter of contention in the United States, many believe that his shining moment on the international stage was as one of the key actors who helped end the Soviet empire.

Reagan left office in January 1989, just before the wave of revolutions that swept across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union's dissolution. But few in the region doubt his crucial influence in triggering those events.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/...3b54dd74bf.html

You liberals need to get over there and explain to all those ex-communists that it wasn't Reagan.  We right-wingers have got them fooled.  smile.gif

"I think that as far as history is concerned --- and he has already gone off into history -- he is a man who made an enormous contribution to creating the conditions for ending the Cold War -- perhaps even the decisive contribution," Gorbachev said<<

All of your references are from right wing sources.

No, they aren't.

Schweizer's story is from the Hoover Institute. They have little credibility in my book. The other references are from sources like Radio Free Europe that was set up as a propaganda unit of the CIA for US interests. Propaganda is hardly a source for facts.

So, no matter what facts are contained in Schweizer's book in the form of de-classified Soviet documents, you are prepared to dismiss the argument because of the writer's bias?

Are you able to take your own writing seriously?

Gorbachev's quote was just after Reagan died ... hell, even I was saying nice things about him then.

So the both of you are right wing sources?

Where will you get your truth if you refuse to accept an account from a biased source? Will you assume that the accounts that minimize Reagan's role are the correct ones, while dismissing the contrary ones as manifesting "right wing" bias?

>>So, you're saying that it's the personalities of those nasty right-wingers that is the problem?

That's probably because politics is more related to party power dynamics these days--and that is primarily a Republican legacy (GOP control of Congress in the 1990s resulted in far fewer votes outside of party loyalty--on both sides).

We have a history of duels to the death and a guy getting beaten with a cane in our national legislative past.  You need not concern yourself unless one side becomes dissatisfied with the system to the point of trying to change it radically.  Some democrats made noises like that after Bush beat Kerry in the 2004 election (secession of blue states).<<

No one ever spoke about secession seriously, and you know it ... that's just nonsense.

No, I don't know that secession wasn't discussed seriously. I do know that it was not discussed as an immediate solution.

In the shadow of the election that returned to power the most autocratic and illegitimate government the nation has ever experienced, many are beginning to talk about "blue state" secession. Most of the talk has seemed frivolous, but over the weekend of November 5-7 in Middlebury, Vermont, three dozen people met to discuss and promote--seriously--the prospect of secession from the United States.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041213/sale

"No one ever spoke about secession seriously"

Apparently, The Nation is yet another of those "right wing" sources, right?

The only 'duel to the death' I recall was Burr -v- Hamilton. Our nation is supposed to be older and wiser now. I hear that some on the right want to have folks like me silenced as traitors and even executed. Hint: I won't go down alone, and if that is the kind of country the right wing wants, we may be headed in that direction.

In a constitutional republic, you support your nation as a whole even when its policies are not your personal ideal. Our republic has plenty of legal avenues for dissent. If you choose illegal avenues of dissent, then you can expect to be punished for it.

I support the right of protest, but I wish more Democrats were aware of the way their verbal dissent weakens their nation. Think about Tokyo Rose.

Any Congress would have a tough time enforcing civility. There are some folks on the radio who should practice a little anger management.

You mean those left-wing crazies who are always calliing right-wing radio shows?

Seriously, neither side has a monopoly on angry and/or violent nutcases.

I see a bumper sticker fairly commonly: "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention." It's usually in the company of other bumper-stickers advocating various liberal positions.

Promoting polarization is your right under the Constitution. However, it's end result could be beyond anyone's nightmare.

Likewise, I'm sure. Which one of us should contact those serious blue-state secessionists to calm them down?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7255.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/3/17568/04317

http://www.newstarget.com/002350.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/20...sion/index.html

[Guest a proud american]

"proud" ?? american , I don't respond to nonsense. Lay off the Kool-Aid, sober up, ask an intelligent question and I may respond.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly which question was nonsense. The question about which ACLU wrote the brief for Oliver North or the question about if you had any family in the military serving in Iraq.

And why won't you answer the questions. Is it because, as with all of the keyboard commando's on this sight. You want to criticize anyone who disagrees with the great decider but aren't willing to see your children sacrificed. And in case you didn't know, it was the American Civil Liberties Union who wrote the brief.

And besides, I respond to your assinine comments all the time. And since, in all honesty I already knew that you never fought in any conflict I can accept that you are what is referred to as a war wimp. Keep watching the noise channel. And for your information I don't drink kool-aide or alcahol. However you obviously do.