See other Neocon Nuttery Articles
Title: Goldi-faux Moves To Conform Even More With The FreeRepublic Policy
Source:
Liberty Post
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=181542
Published: Mar 26, 2007
Author: Goldi
Post Date: 2007-03-26 19:47:18 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 1418
Comments: 99
For those of you who haven't noticed, I've been removing articles posted in Breaking news that are not news....and not even close to being news. They are someone's idea of a personal rant. And since it isn't news, I'm not going to relocate it...I'm going to REMOVE it. In the past, articles were posted in Breaking news that weren't. People got sanctioned or banned for doing that. Lately, SOME people just post any garbage they seem to have an obsession over, and even put in their own comments. That ends today. NOW. I'm not going to fight any of you over it. It's a lost cause. But I moderate this site, and I will ensure that NEWS is what is being posted. Anything that is NOT news is going to be PURGED. Got that? REMOVED. No warning. Exceptions are ONLY humor, Editorials, and Biker Bar. If it isn't news, it has no business even BEING here!!! This is a news forum. And for repeat offenders, you've been warned. When you keep doing it, and they keep getting removed...keep in mind I'm noting your names. When I have to remove too many posted by the same name ...your account will go as well. No additional warning. This is IT. So, for those of you with an axe to grind, or an idea you want to shove down our throats...over and over and over...this is your ONLY warning: Visit GoDaddy - Start your own website ... focus your obsession there. Because it isn't welcome here. You know who you are. This is something I'm NOT even going to discuss. END of Announcement and my part in any Discussion.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-59) not displayed.
.
.
.
#60. To: Mekons4 (#49)
Great poem. Ya know, the MIC was really on the run after WWI. People were fed up with em and were determined to defund em. Non-interventionism and pacifism were ascendent. I guess that's why they had to raise up a new monster (Hitler) to teach us all a lesson. And that sure did the trick, didn't it?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Most excellent!
The result was a rise in revolutionary temperature throughout Mediterranean Jewry, and a second expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius on the ground, we are told, that they "constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus." With this statement the name of Christ first appears in Roman history.
The same 'mo' as happened to FR once the blood-sucking zionists got their 'hooks' into JimRob. Oh so similar, indeed!
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee Website
IMO, not electable. I like the guy, but I like Kucinich too. Unfortunately, you gotta have about $100 million to even think about it. Frankly, I would accept anyone who can put four words together and isn't owned by big business. After the last 6 years, I'm just anti-Republican. I don't want a one-party state, so if Ron Paul got enough backing, I would seriously consider him. I'd like a guy who promised to send the army into K Street and arrest or kill everyone who worked there.
Actually, to show I walk the walk, I voted for a far-right Republican this year. He was running against THUGS in the Dem party here, a punk who was inheriting his father's seat on the Cook County board. The old man had a massive stroke, but still won because the punk kid came out and claimed the old man, John Stroger, was DOING FINE. He was a vegetable. So the old man won, barely, and then suddenly named his kid, Todd Stroger, to replace him. You should have seen the signature. Someone held the veggie's hand and signed for him. So I voted for an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-healthcare Republican. Because I don't like being insulted.
A Paul/Kucinich or Kucinich/Paul national unity ticket it is, then. I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
you can buy a DVD recorder for 100 bucks and imput any source; copy your vinyl onto CD for posterity!
That's funny. I don't care who you are.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
El pee is no better than Free Republic. It is worse, in fact, because it holds itself out to be one thing: A free speech zone, when in reality it isn't even close. Likud Post is not a bad description of what it is. During Israel's war of aggression against Lebanon (and does anyone know why they call it "the Lebanon" all the time?) Goldi was on a nationalist tear. And by nationalist, I don't mean "pro-America". Her first allegiance is to Israel, and she is an Israel-firster all the way. That was when I first started getting called a "hezbot" because I didn't think Hezbollah was completely in the wrong. Suddenly my posts are getting dumped, my responses are getting pulled, and other folks are getting out and out banned. Seriously, folks. Why on earth would you post on an Israeli run site? Because that's what El pee is. Shit, the bitch admits she's taking down names. Like the rest of the nascent fascist brownshirts over there you know she'd give your name and email to the gummint in exchange for the privilege of giving Cheney a blowjob any day! So it's a non-secure site run by someone you don't trust with loyalty to a foreign government. Are you fucking nuts posting over there? Because the way I see it, we're about 1 month away from attacking Iran and living in a goddamn police state. And lists of names and emails are going to mean something. Think. Be cautious. Be rational. If you stick your dick in a beehive and it gets stung, you pull your damn dick out and walk away. You don't see if it will happen twice.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Only if it was rumored or proven he preferred little boys.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Maybe we'll be living in a police state. Maybe we'll be living in a civil war. And maybe the attempt to start a new war will miserably fail.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I think the reports are that Mao was sexually omnivorous.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
When, in all of human history, has an attempt to start a war failed?
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Charles I's attempt to start a war with Scotland failed. Parliament made Charles II end his Dutch war. Bush is sort of a cross between Charles I and James II, combining the worst of both men.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I think I missed that. Has she admitted that she has disclosed names?
Come on. Do you think she would? There'd be an exodus from that site that would make the Jews leaving Egypt seem like a haphazard affair.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Leave it to you to have a reference handy to refute a rhetorical question. And Charles I didn't have carriers to sink.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Keep in mind I'm noting your names... She's making a list, and checking it twice. Call me a paranoid, but I'm generally against blacklists and such...
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
I read the link and didn't see anything about him trying to start a war there, only to levy a wartime tax in time of peace against all towns and cities rather than just the ports, and it looks like he managed to piss off all the lords and parliament by doing so. I certainly see the parrallels to Bush in this kind of ham-handed idiocy, but I don't see the war issue... Maybe you can help me with that?
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
My mention of ship money was prompted by your mention of carriers.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
So he started his war after all, it just didn't go well. Like I said.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
It was a very abortive war. He tried to resume it, and couldn't, when Parliament wouldn't give him the money. So instead he tried to arrest the leaders of Parliament, which is what led to civil war in England.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
He tried to resume it, and couldn't, when Parliament wouldn't give him the money. So instead he tried to arrest the leaders of Parliament, which is what led to civil war in England. Too bad our toothless parliament doesn't have the power, the stones or the will to do the same.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
The whole "Breaking News" thing is a joke, really. I think the only meaningful contribution ever made by jjbrowser was that while it's fairly objective what constitutes "Breaking" (i.e. within 48 hours of publishing), what constitutes "News" is completely subjective. Completely. Goldi claimed otherwise when I was there and no doubt still does. What's "news" to one person is boring to another, and propaganda to a third. It is true that given the nature of forums and the title box, that relevant articles can be smothered from the title box by excessive postings by someone who doesn't like what was posted. That has been done on LP and there's little doubt Cal was one of the perpetuators. She was certainly dishonest on one other instance I know of. But there's not much that can be done by a moderator/owner to prevent that, as there's no clear rule one could make that would keep it from happening. The best that can be done is to repeat posting articles that are being smothered. But "Breaking News" is a joke if it's defended as an objective classification. What qualifies is what the controller wants qualified.
WhiteSands used to play that game with me when he first appeared at LP, flooding the sidebar with garbage news just to drive something he didn't like off the screen. I'd just let him 'post away' until it seemed he was finished and then I'd start posting articles that I 'knew' he wouldn't like and he would have to start all over again. Took about 2 weeks but he finally tired of his fruitless efforts.
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee Website
It's kinda like the difference between "America" and "The United States". One's a country with living, breathing people, the other's just a bunch of lines on a map with a GDP. It's also kinda like "the Rheinland."
The result was a rise in revolutionary temperature throughout Mediterranean Jewry, and a second expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius on the ground, we are told, that they "constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus." With this statement the name of Christ first appears in Roman history.
Well, National Review Online and FrontPageMagazine run articles that praise Leon Trotsky http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6228 ,so why not Mao?
you know what's amazing to me, there's not even facade anymore with these people. they're right in our faces with their agenda and their ideology, yet foolish GOPbots/Freetards/BACs still support them.
I was wondering if oldibox was vacationing for the past few months as news and opinions were readable. I see she's back.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"You've been noticed. Oh yes, you've been noticed."
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Trotskycons? By Stephen Schwartz And the fact is that many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration — that is, they belonged to or sympathized with a trend in radical leftism that followed the principle of opposition to the Soviet betrayal of the revolution to its logical end. The Shachtmanites, in the 1960s, joined the AFL-CIO in its best Cold War period, and many became staunch Reaganites. This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine. Burnham was joined at NR by Suzanne LaFollette, who, piquantly enough, retained some copyrights to Trotskyist material until her death. But they were not the only people on the right who remained, in some degree, sentimental about their left-wing past. Willmoore Kendall, for example, was, as I recall, a lifelong contributor to relief for Spanish radical leftist refugees living in France. Above all, Burnham and Kristol, in a certain sense, did not renounce their pasts. They acknowledged that they had evolved quite dramatically away from their earlier enthusiasms. But they did not apologize, did not grovel, did not crawl and beg forgiveness for having, at one time, been stirred by the figure of Trotsky. That is, of course, insufficient for some people. There remain those for whom any taint of leftism is a permanent stain, and who cannot abide an individual who, having in the past been a Trotskyist, does not now caper and grimace in self-loathing over the historical truth, which is that, yes, Trotsky commanded the Red Army, and yes, Trotsky wielded a sword, and yes, Trotsky, a man of moral consistency if nothing else, took responsibility for the crimes of the early Bolshevik regime. But of that, more anon. The second issue at hand involves the actual ex-Trotskyists who engaged with the issue of the Iraqi war. I call this group, to which I belong, the "three- and-a-half international," which is an obscure reference I won't explain fully. But I use it to indicate three main individuals: Christopher Hitchens, myself, and the Iraqi intellectual Kanan Makiya, who all did indeed march under the Red Flag at some point, and probably even sang the hallowed revolutionary anthem of the same name (to the tune of "O Tannenbaum"!) The half-personage is Paul Berman, an inveterate climber onto bandwagons, whose claim to involvement with the Trotskyist movement is thin at best. One thing must be observed here: We are almost alone among younger neoconservatives in boasting such credentials. I recently received a hilarious e-mail from a Trotskyist who asked me if it were true Paul D. Wolfowitz and Richard Perle had been Shachtmanites. That is absurd. By the time they emerged, the Shachtmanites were all quite long in the tooth. Nor did Bill Kristol ever follow in his father's path. Indeed, most of the original Shachtmanites who became neoconservatives have retired from the scene. Jeet Heer's National Post article largely reviewed the history of Trotskyism itself. It pointed out Trotsky's intellectual brilliance, and the fascinating success of the Trotskyists in attracting great minds of the 1930s, ranging from Saul Bellow to André Breton. It then made a fairly tame observation: that "some of the books about the Middle East crisis that are causing the greatest stir were written by thinkers deeply shaped by the tradition of the Fourth International." Among such books Heer cited my own Two Faces of Islam, which deals with Saudi Arabia. More importantly, he noted the significant role of Makiya in advising the Bush administration during the period leading to the intervention in Iraq. Heer did not, however, contribute to the neofascist paranoia theories. That Makiya was a major player in debates over Iraq is something nobody can deny; for years he was alone in his articulate opposition to Saddam. That his Trotskyist past had nothing whatever to do with his role in advising the Bush administration is something nobody sane could deny. Indeed, his personal history was mainly known only to Hitchens, myself, and a handful of others until Heer's article appeared. Heer also quoted me, as having "exchanged banter" with Wolfowitz about these matters at a party. (Two corrections here: I incorrectly told Heer the chitchat took place at the party for Bill Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan's book, The War Over Iraq, when it actually occurred at a Weekly Standard holiday bash. And Heer was wrong in saying I ever refer to Trotsky as "the old man," something I consider a ridiculous affectation.) I plead guilty; I did, indeed, emit a barely serious remark or two in speaking with Wolfowitz. Heer wrote, "the yoking together of Paul Wolfowitz and Leon Trotsky sounds odd," but oddness is an essential feature of humor, which is what banter is usually based on. And that was about it for Heer's reportage. Heer also wrote that Hitchens, a close comrade of Makiya, had provided input to the White House on Iraq; Heer threw in a gaggle of further historical references, and included some quotes from me, Berman, and a leftist named Christopher Phelps on whether Trotsky, Shachtman, and the Bush administration can be said to have anything in common. All in all, an unremarkable article. But not to Arnold Beichman, who replied with a bilious blast on NRO Monday. Beichman's tirade was titled "Printing Nonsense," which could have been a description of its contents. Beichman seemed intent on recapitulating his own past by producing a Stalinist anathema of the kind that, frankly, would have been considered crude even for the Communist Daily Worker in 1933. Beichman saw sins, infractions, and motives where none existed. For him, the copyediting transformation by the National Post of Hitchens from White House "confidant" to "ad hoc consultant" was a violation of journalistic ethics equivalent to those committed by Jayson Blair. Beichman seemed to have forgotten his long-ago experiences in a daily newspaper newsroom, and the ease with which such matters become distorted. There was more to come: Heer was portrayed as a conspiracy theorist, much like those who claim all neoconservatives are extreme "Likudniks." But nothing remotely resembling such arguments appeared in the National Post article; Heer was clearly more interested in the story of ex-lefties who became supporters of war than in accusations about manipulative cabals. In a sleight-of-hand again redolent of the Daily Worker, Beichman described the article as "a startling expose about President Bush." It was nothing of the kind. Beichman ascribed to Heer the view that "the Defense department Trotskyites [are] behind it all, but the same people are acolytes of the late philosopher, Leo Strauss." Not one word in the National Post article can be taken as stating such a thing, and not a single reference to Strauss appears therein. Beichman tacked on a quote from an article by Heer on Strauss from a different newspaper, on a different occasion. (And neither I, nor Hitchens, nor Makiya, nor even Berman ever had anything to do with the Straussian school of philosophy.) This is, unfortunately, the essence of the Stalinist method: to find tiny lapses where they do not exist, and to formulate arguments on the basis of what one wishes was said, rather than what was said. But Beichman does not rest. He claims that Heer found "supposed members of Trotsky's Fourth International… who today populate the Bush administration right into the Pentagon and the Oval Office." Well, I'm not populating either place, and Hitchens gave one talk at the White House. Makiya I can't account for, but I have yet to hear that his advice on Iraq was considered unsound in either venue. Beichman reaches the climax of his tantrum in a denunciation of Trotsky himself, as the man who "mercilessly wiped out rebellious anti- Bolshevik soldiers and sailors at Kronstadt," and who delivered himself of a degrading declaration of party loyalty to a Bolshevik congress. It is certainly true that Trotsky's role at Kronstadt was abominable. It is also true that very few people today know or care about Kronstadt, which may or may not be bad. But a great deal more people know about the Moscow purge trials of the 1930s. In that instance, Trotsky fearlessly denounced and exposed the totalitarian lies being purveyed by the Soviets and echoed by the leftist intellectuals around the world. Which, in the end, is more important today? When Beichman was young (something that may not have ever actually occurred), Kronstadt was important because it showed that the "workers' state" brutally repressed the workers. But the Moscow trials remain with us because they demonstrate that left-liberal intellectuals cannot be trusted about totalitarian regimes. Do we need a Kronstadt to condemn Saddam? No. Does an understanding of the Moscow trials help us comprehend, say, Peter Arnett? Absolutely. Let us not forget, in this context, that Trotsky immortally referred to The Nation magazine and its "reptile breed." Is this not more significant, today, than his comments at a Bolshevik congress? The Bolsheviks are no more, but The Nation continues to afflict us. Stalinists loved to describe Trotskyists as "sinister," and here Beichman does not disappoint. The real intent of Jeet Heer, according to him, was "something… sinister…: to rob the Coalition, which destroyed a terrorist haven and an inhuman dictatorship, of the moral victory it represents." This, presumably, was to be effected by associating Donald Rumsfeld with Trotsky at Kronstadt. Well, I consider Beichman's intent more sinister: to exclude Hitchens and myself from consideration as reliable allies in the struggle against Islamist extremism, because we have yet to apologize for something I, for one, will never consider worthy of apology. There is clearly a group of heresy-hunters among the original neoconservatives who resent having to give way to certain newer faces, with our own history and culture. These older neoconservatives cannot take yes for an answer, and they especially loathe Hitchens. But nobody ever asked Norman Podhoretz to apologize for having once written poetry praising the Soviet army. Nobody ever asked the art critic Meyer Schapiro, who was also a Trotskyist, to flog himself for assisting illegal foreign revolutionaries at a time when it was considered unpatriotic, to say the least. Nobody ever asked Shachtman or Burnham, or, for that matter, Sidney Hook, or Edmund Wilson, or a hundred others, to grovel and beg mercy for inciting war on capitalism in the depths of the Great Depression. And nobody ever asked George Orwell to renounce the fact that he put his life on the line, and may in the end have sacrificed his life, for the ideal of proletarian socialism, for the extremist anarchists of Barcelona, for the despised and persecuted Catalan Marxists of the POUM, and, yes, for the Red Flag and everything it once stood for. One might also add that nobody ever asked Jay Lovestone and Bertram Wolfe, ex-Communists whose company Beichman doubtless would prefer, to apologize for having defended the Soviet purge trials and the Stalinist state, long after so many of the brave band that carried a banner with the strange device of the Fourth International were murdered for their defiance of Stalinism. And I have yet to read an apology by Beichman for his own involvement with the Communist network. To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling of Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state, as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists, and Stalinists in their second childhood, make of it what they will. — Stephen Schwartz writes for leading media around the world. His next book, an account of Jewish religious life in the Balkans, will soon appear.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the true face of "conservatism" today! It's all about "defending Trotsky to the last breath" and "the fate of the Jewish people." Never mind those foolish, secondary things such as what's good for the people of America or Europe. How many of you thought that you'd live to see the day when National Review would run articles singing the praises of a sadistic Red Army butcher?
It's hard to believe, isn't it? The fuckers hijacked conservativism, morphed it into Trotskyism, and then told Party members to toe the line. Is it any wonder why the BACs, Goldi’s and Badeyes fight so hard to forward their agenda? It’s raw internationalism, exactly what the dupes thought collapsed when the USSR folded.
FReakers choose to ignore such realities. It doesn't fit into their country- club, checkered pant illusions.
How many of you thought that you'd live to see the day when National Review would run articles singing the praises of a sadistic Red Army butcher? Well said! And I'll go you one better with incriminating evidence about what neoconservativism is all about. The neocons make no secrets about their goals and ambitions. The Weekly Standard published Neocon Godfather Self-Confirmed Trotskyite Irving kristol's essay on August 25, 2003 entitled "The Neoconservative Persuasion." Irving said that America was an idea not merely a chunk of geography, not just a real place with history and values and traditions. America was an elastic idea and that's why we can have open borders and spread this good idea around the globe. Also Irving stated that at the center of neoconservatives' beliefs is that Israel must be defended - no questions asked - it is to be assumed. We have allowed communists to hi-jack our White House, our political parties - I say that in the plural because neoliberalism is no different than neoconservative and in fact the neocons started off in the Democratic Party before they moved on to destroy the GOP. America is so screwed - the neos can do with America's military muscle to build a "Utopia"in the world what they were unable to do with Russia's more limited police state tanks.
And new weirdos recently signed on.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Could we split this thread from post #92 on (i.e. create a new thread with Jethro's post with a title like "Trotskyite Neocons" or somesuch) Thanks.
christine just made this a thread of its own.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
That was written after WWI, but it's even more applicable today.
#61. To: Eoghan (#12)
#62. To: leveller (#14)
Goldi has become Orwellian. She is raiding archives and removing articles to the memory hole. I just checked, and last year's "LP Soon To Be Likud Post" has been removed
#63. To: Arator (#59)
what's your take on possible GOP candidate Ron Paul?
#64. To: All (#63)
#65. To: Mekons4 (#63)
IMO, not electable. I like the guy, but I like Kucinich too.
#66. To: Mekons4 (#39)
most of it is irreplaceable and not available on CD.
#67. To: Jethro Tull (#36)
a pack of 1st row sitting, bow-tie wearing, fruitcakes
#68. To: bluedogtxn (#67)
#69. To: christine, leveller, ..., Burkeman1, Brian S, Dakmar, Hayek Fan, Mekons4, Eoghan, Zipporah, Neil McIver, Jethro Tull, leveller, Esso, Arator, angle, Tauzero (#68)
#70. To: Jethro Tull (#36)
I'll say....I just traveled over to the FReeperdome. My lord, what a pack of 1st row sitting, bow-tie wearing, fruitcakes. I can't believe what the GOP has become. They'd support Mao if he came back from the dead and swore allegiance to The Party.
#71. To: bluedogtxn (#69)
Because the way I see it, we're about 1 month away from attacking Iran and living in a goddamn police state. And lists of names and emails are going to mean something.
#72. To: robin (#70)
#73. To: aristeides (#71)
And maybe the attempt to start a new war will miserably fail.
#74. To: bluedogtxn (#73)
#75. To: bluedogtxn (#69)
the bitch admits she's taking down names.
#76. To: leveller (#75)
the bitch admits she's taking down names. I think I missed that. Has she admitted that she has disclosed names?
#77. To: aristeides (#74)
Charles I's attempt to start a war with Scotland failed.
#78. To: bluedogtxn (#77)
#79. To: leveller (#75)
And for repeat offenders, you've been warned. When you keep doing it, and they keep getting removed...keep in mind I'm noting your names. When I have to remove too many posted by the same name ...your account will go as well. No additional warning. This is IT.
#80. To: aristeides (#78)
Ship money.
#81. To: bluedogtxn (#80)
The Covenanters humbled Charles in two almost bloodless campaigns, the Bishops' Wars (1639–40), leaving him with no alternative but to ask for money from an English Parliament in which his opponents were strongly represented. Charles had authorized a general assembly of the Scottish church (1638) and a Scottish Parliament (1639); the Covenanters packed these meetings, scrapped all the king's innovations, and abolished episcopacy. Thus, by 1641 there was a revolutionary situation in both kingdoms, and in August 1642 war broke out between Charles and his English opponents.
#82. To: aristeides (#81)
The Covenanters humbled Charles in two almost bloodless campaigns, the Bishops' Wars (1639–40),
#83. To: bluedogtxn (#82)
#84. To: aristeides (#83)
It was a very abortive war.
#85. To: Brian S (#0)
#86. To: Neil McIver (#85)
that relevant articles can be smothered from the title box by excessive postings by someone
#87. To: bluedogtxn (#69)
Likud Post is not a bad description of what it is. During Israel's war of aggression against Lebanon (and does anyone know why they call it "the Lebanon" all the time?)
#88. To: Jethro Tull (#50)
(Edited)
They'd support Mao if he came back from the dead and swore allegiance to The Party.
#89. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Esso (#88)
#90. To: bluedogtxn (#69)
#91. To: bluedogtxn (#79)
keep in mind I'm noting your names.
#92. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#88)
I googled the author, Stephen Schwartz. enjoy
Pasts and present. 
n June 7, the National Post, a Canadian daily, published a rather amusing article by Jeet Heer, titled "Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House." The aim of the author was to illuminate two issues occasionally argued in political media: first, the scurrilous claim by a group of neofascists that the neoconservatives are all ex-Trotskyists, and second, the very real evolution of certain ex-Trotskyists toward an interventionist position on the Iraq war. In the U.S., these are fringe topics discussed only in the most rarefied circles. In Canada, however, a labor and socialist party remains a major political force (the New Democrats), and politics in general has a more European (especially, and predictably, British) flavor. In the latter milieu, Trotskyism retains a relevance it has not had in the U.S. since the 1930s. 
>http://lreview.com/@Middle1">
#93. To: Jethro Tull (#92)
(Edited)
"To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling of Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state, as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology"
#94. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#93)
#95. To: robin (#70)
he preferred little boys.
#96. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#93)
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the true face of "conservatism" today! It's all about "defending Trotsky to the last breath" and "the fate of the Jewish people." Never mind those foolish, secondary things such as what's good for the people of America or Europe.
#97. To: christine (#89)
#98. To: christine (#68)
#99. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Jethro Tull (#98)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest