wrote:
On Apr 2, 5:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

...

I don't recall ever hearing any political opinions
attributed to Rosie O'Donnell, that last thing I
remember hearing about her before movie when
made her current feud with Donald Trump had
something to do with her bodyguard applying
for a concealed carry permit and before that it
was a movie she made with Dan Ackroid.
Just this past week she equated the Iranian taking
of the UK soldiers as being akin to the Gulf Of
Tonkin affair.

Do you suppose that in the 1960's critics of the
Gulf of Tonkin fraud were criticized for comparing
it to the sinking of the Maine?

I don't recall, but it's irrelevant. In making this
statement she is arguing that the taking of these
soldiers was an intentional fraud by the UK government
and possibly the US. That is the obvious meaning of
her words. She is revolting.


She (and other) media Lefties have
also made lots of noise about how the 9/11 murders
were staged (by the Neocons presumably) to get a nice juicy
war going.

I gather from your presumption, that she didn't say
that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the Neocons.
So that leaves us with an actual statement with
which I agree. The 9/11 attacks were staged to get
a nice juicy war going. IMHO they were staged for
that purpose by bin Laden.

An utterly insane analysis. She clearly means that
it staging was by and within the US power structure.
She and the others in this bag clearly believe
in an internal US conspiracy in varying degrees.
They are so utterly ravaged by hatred of their political
enemies that they are willing to ascribe conspiracy where
the plain facts provide a much simpler and obvious answer.


Considering the
extend you will go to fabricate ulterior motives
for the most banal of my remarks (e.g. I don't
know any prominent scientist...) I'm not inclined
to accept inferences you draw about what
she didn't say.

Interesting. In the threat which you are referencing
you claimed that 'no prominent scientist ...'. I challenged
you on the statement generally and also on the qualifier
'prominent'. The former because it simply isn't true and
the latter because it is an implici appeal to authority which
has no place in science. Then I produced *a* climatologist who
demonstrated my case that there was another view to be had.
Then you responded with something like "I stipulated you have
produced an example of one scientist who ..." Then I followed
up with a couple of emails were I documented a list of others.
And you responded with .... silence. (As you should, since your
position on the matter at hand was incorrect.) The point of this
little trip through recent posting history is to deflate this
claim that I ascribe ulterior motives. I analyze what you say
using the usual and obvious meaning of language and either agree,
keep still, or refute your statements.




Note that she is not some barely heard
fringe voice. She is a "personality" on one of the
more popular daytime TV drool fests targeted
particularly at women.

I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en

I don't listen to him much, but I've never heard him make that claim. I *have* heard him
claim that SH was part of an ecosystem friendly toward people who employ the methods of
terrorism and thus was legitimately in the crosshairs if we are to attack terrorists
*and* those who support them. This is an entirely unremarkable position. It is true
without dispute that SH has among other things: Funded "Palestinian" suicide bombers',
provided safe harbor to known terrorist (was it Abu Nidal, I can't recall), and plotted
to assassinate a former US president. These alone are ample evidence to support
that statement.


Noah Chomsky. ...
Here's a bit of his wit and wisdom that you may find
less bland:

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really
easy way: stop participating in it.

(The implication, of course, is that the US/West acts equivalently
to terrorists.)

Do you suppose he meant to imply that the US/West ONLY
acts thus, or merely that it has done so? It was once pointed

That is has done so on some occasions would be the obvious reading.
Also the tense of "participating" means that he believes it is an
ongoing activity.

out to me that if you are standing next to a bomb when it explodes
it matters naught to you if the bomb was hidden in a trash can
or dropped from an airplane.

This is a very low form of moral equivalence. *Why* something happened
does matter in the larger geopolitical sphere. Sure, if you're the
victim, it doesn't make much difference. But, when judging the morality
of the acts, it sure does make a difference. "Terrorists" by planning
and intent target non-combatants as a matter of *policy*. While civilians
have died at the hands of US weapons in time of war, this has never
been the policy of our government in our lifetime so far as I am aware.
Chomsky drawing this parallel merely illustrates how much he loathes his
own country, nothing more. It is not remotely true.


I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to
exist, then it would choose the American system.

(It's a shame people like Noam have never known a real Fascist system
because then they would have the manners to keep quiet.)

Maybe he has which is why he suggested that there were NO
rational examples thereof. You haven;t suggested what you
suppose he meant, do you suppose he meant that we should
keep our guard up because it would be easy for a Fascist
dictator to take control under the guise of a populist, progressive,
liberal, or 'social conservative'?

Doubtful. But even if that is what he meant it is absurd. It would
not be *easy* for any Fascist to take control as you suggest because the
US citizenry is accustomed to considerably liberty - liberty that would be
fairly curtailed in any Fascist system, "rational" or otherwise. In any case,
I take the meaning of this statement in context of his many other
anti-American screeds and it is reasonable to conclude that this is just
another.


If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
president would have been hanged.

(Yes. American presidents are no better than the butchers of the 3rd Reich
and/or Nuremberg was a sham.)

Neither of those inference are remotely justifiable. Considering a
person to be a criminal is not equivalent to considering him to
be as bad a criminal as the worst ever.

Sure, but the point remains that he considers every postwar American
president as *the moral/legal equivalent* as the butchers of the 3rd Reich
under the rule of Nuremburg. It's just an outrageous statement. How
can any bright person (and he is that) seriously believe that, say,
Kennedy or Carter or Reagan could be judged and sentenced to death under
the rules in place at Nuremburg? The answer is this: It is possible to
hold this view only if you believe in the essential evil of US leadership
and/or the system at large.



There are many other equally un-bland comments from Chomsky. They
demonstrate an above-average intellect that is occasionally insightful
but full of self-loathing. He maintains an institutionalized hatred of the very
things that made the West the most durable bastion for the preservation
of liberty.

You've demonstrated so far that he is guilty of no exaggerations
worse that those which typify your remarks.

You are entitled to that view however wrong it is. But even if it
were so, no one considers *me* an important intellectual force in
the formation of a major stream of political theory. Moreover,
I think any reasonable reading of his comments, especially in context
of his perpetual vitriol directed at the US, it's government, its
leaders and so forth, leads one to conclude that he pretty much
loathes this country's ideas and system.


I certainly can't be sure that my interpretations are correct
but I surely don't buy your spin as definitive.

Nor should you. But you should at the very least be suspicious
that a person who articulates such views is considered important
among the radical Left.




The notion that the Democrats even HAVE some
sort of unifying ideology is ludicrous. They lack
the necessary social skills.
The latter is certainly true for all groups of people
who choose to create associations with one another, but
the former is not so. The Ds (and the Rs) do have some
basic formations on which they essentially agree. In
the case of the Ds the basic premise appears to be that
their definition of "social justice" is so good/proper/inarguable
that it justifies *forcing* other citizens to participate
against their will. This is nothing short of mob rule.
(For the record the Rs have a similar "we know what's good
for you" ethos, they merely define "good" differently.)


AFACT, what you mean is they both agree on such matters
as taxation, zoning laws, building codes and so on.

More broadly, they both "agree" that they know what is
"good" and are willing to use force beyond that
mandated by both our foundational law and the political theory
upon which it is built. Neither values liberty primarily. Both
value political power above everything else.


...
And yet I still cannot recall even one Republican
criticizing a current member of the Klan, can you?
But the Klan is never cited by pretty much anyone on
the Right - at least not in the last 30 or 40 years
that I can recall. Chomsky *is* cited by the leading Left
lights.

Like whom?

I will keep an eye out for this on your behalf. Most
of my encounters with the rabid, uh I mean, radical
Left are the in-person variety and thus impossible
to document since you won't take my word for it (as
you shouldn't - the burden lies with me).




I've only seen *one* Republican run away from
Pat Robertson (you know, the one-time Presidential
Candidate and professional con artist, who wanted
In what way is he a "con artist" pray tell us? I'm
no fan of Robertson's, but he appears to be fairly
vanilla as TV religious personalities go.

Aside from the argument that everyone who makes
money by selling something (e.g. salvation) that
he cannot deliver is a fraud...
Have you ever seen him do his 'faith healing' by
mail act on the 700 club? It is the same act
Yuri Geller used to prove to people that they
could fix broken watches with their psychic
abilities, though I bet Robertson was first.

Hang on a second. Notwithstanding our personal
religious views (or lack thereof), you have to
see people like Robertson (and Geller) as providing
some kind of service. People send him money *voluntarily* because
he gives them some sort of comfort, enhances their beliefs,
or otherwise gives them something they want.

By contrast, the Left has been promising social salvation by means
of increasing spending for over 6 decades and they have yet to deliver. Surely
this is *real* fraud since the funding in that case is not
voluntary. You tell me who the greater offender is.


to nuke the State Department and assassinate Chavez)
I never heard him say the former and latter is - well -
appealing but unrealistic.

Both are sufficiently unrealistic that if he had inspired
someone to a more conventionally executed act of
violence against other he would not have any legally
actionable responsibility.

and some other Republicans tried to recall him in
retaliation. Similarly absent is any condemnation
of Jerry Falwell, or Ann Coulter. I'm sure I could
Falwell is probably the most mainstream of all the
religious right.

I'd argue Billy Graham is more mainstream. Isn't

I was educated in the halls of an undergraduate institution
that was strongly aligned with the theology of both these
people. In that context, I heard them both speak at services
I attended. Graham and Falwell are - in my direct observation -
almost wholly aligned in their theology and understanding
of Evangelical Christianity. Graham was historically quieter
on matters political, but that's about the only significant
difference I could see.

Falwell one of those who tried to paint the September
11 attacks as divine retribution for American tolerance
for homosexuality or some such?

That's right. There is a broad spectrum of Evangelicals
who believe that the US is "reaping what it has sown"
as they put it and that when bad things happen to us it
is divine payback for our collective moral failings.
This is not an unusual perspective to hear once you leave the
Left and Right coast political insularity that ignores
everything in the rest of the country.


His financial books open to all to see
and he is in no way ever been painted as a huckster.

Oh? How much is he worth and did he earn it or was it
donated to him? It is interesting that you 'know'
his finances are so 'open'.

I've never bothered to look. I merely admire his willingness
to maintain an open book position as regards to his ministry's
finances. In any case, he is, as I said, providing a service
to his constituency and he is "worth" whatever they wish to
donate. It is fundamentally offensive for you to imply that
people who are funded by donations do not "work" for it. I
personally know many people, particularly among the clergy, who
do marvelous work all funded by donations. Oh ... I keep forgetting
that good works are the job of the Government and must be funded
at the point of a gun to be considered meritorious.


He might not die as rich as Cardinal Cody but
AFAIK Cody came by his wealth through inheritance
and investment, drawing no more from the Church's
coffers than others of equal station in the hierarchy.

Pardon me, but your bigotry is showing. There are
uncounted thousands of people whose life's work
depends on the voluntary donations of people who
share their sense of mission and purpose. For you
to denigrate it as you have is contemptible. I count
among my friends and family something like a couple of
dozen such people. On an average day they work harder,
longer, and for a lot less than most of the rest of us
would tolerate because they have this sense of purpose.
As it happens, I do not entirely share their worldview,
but do dismiss their efforts as you have is ignorant.
If people want voluntarily make, say, Pat Roberston
a multi-millionaire because they value his output
that highly, how is this in any way less honorable than
a best selling author doing the same thing peddling books,
for example?


While me might well not agree with his political
views, they are hardly the radical formations of
someone like Chomsky.

I tend to think that abolishing the separation
of Church and State, is as radical and undesirable
as rampant socialism.

If you believe that this is the principal intent of
the conservative religious right then you're are
completely out of touch with that movement. This
supposed elimination of the separation is a fiction
of the Left for the most part. While the Rev.
Billybob Swampwater in Backwater USA might want to
make Christianity the law of the land, it is not the
goal of mainstream Evangelicals. They merely and rightly
detest that fawning "tolerance" of the multi-cultural
Left for all traditions *except* traditional Judeo-Christianity.
Moreover, that tradition is an essential and inarguable
part of our foundations as a nation, but the Left wants
to institute a kind of amnesia so that we all manage to forget
that. I guess Jefferson and his ilk were actually more influenced
by crystal pyramids and Buddhist chants...


Coulter *was* sanctioned by the Right. IIRC, she
lost a job writing for National Review and has
largely been persona non grata in anything resembling
a mainstream Right outlet.

You mean like, she doesn't appear on FOX TV
any more?

I dunno. I don't watch that much TV. But she is absent
in published form in at least the one forum I mentioned, which
was as best I know, the most legitimate platform she ever had.


But she's interesting
and illustrative for a much more important reason.
She uses rhetorical excess and brio to make a point.
When interviewed, she comes across as being outrageous
for effect and comedic value, not so much that she
believes every word of what she says to the letter.
A good part of her shtick seems to be irritating
her rhetorical foes. Chomsky, by contrast, *does*
take himself seriously. Big difference.

Oh really? You think Chomsky _seriously_ believes
every American President since WWII was as bad
as Himmler but Ann Coulter is just jiving us.

Yes Chomsky seriously believes from everything I've
read. I think Coulter believes some or perhaps most
of what she says, but it is entirely clear from her
demeanor in the dozen or so interviews I've seen over
the years that she revels in being a gadfly and pain
to the Left.

You think Moore believes every word he says,
never exaggerates for effect and wouldn't
dream of irritating anyone?

Moore clearly both believes everything he's peddling
AND loves irritating the Right just for effect.


find a few more naddering nabobs if I spent
as much time looking for obscure nuts as you
seem to do.
But Chomsky is *not* obscure. That's the point.
He is a tenured professor at MIT that has fawning
followers all over the ideologically Left spectrum.

So says you.

Moore is not obscure. Rosie O'Donnell is not obscure.
That's the whole point.

And neither of them are as hateful as the likes of
Limbaugh and Coulter. Moore is a satirist and

Sez you. Limbaugh is at least entertaining and usually
funny however much I think his politics are off kilter.

O'Donnell is a clown. If you think Coulter is entertaining
then you should be laughing your ass off listening
to Moore.

Moore did occasionally entertain me, but not for the reasons
he intended. He is so obviously dishonest while at the
same time taking himself seriously it's hilarious to watch.
SNIP


But neither statement really means all that much, does it. The major
parties campaign to the their extreme constituents in the primaries and
then move to the so-called "middle" in the actual elections. Neither
much cares about preserving liberty and demanding individual
responsibility. The Rs want to be everyone's daddy and the Ds want to be
everyone's mommy. Not much of a choice. There have been exceptions,
of course. Carter was a pretty much down the line Leftie and his
disasterous results speak for themselves. Reagan was very much
Right ideologically and was arguably the most effective president of
the last half of the 20th century.

While on the subject of disasterous results that speak for
themselves don't forget the collapse of the Savings and Loans,

Reagan's fault? I wonder how.

ubiquitous legal looting of corporate pension plans, support

Ditto. The legislature writes law, not the executive branch.
IIRC, the Dems were in the majority at that time.

of Saddam Hussein in his first major unprovoked war of

"Support" is an exaggeration. It was minor by comparison
of the support rendered by the Germans and French, but the
Left could never quite find the words to criticize them.
There is no such thing as perfect decision making only the
best decision under current circumstances. Iraq was the
best of a bad lot at the time and the US made decisions in
that context. Wrong now, perhaps not so much in those days.

aggression, 241 dead Marines in Beiruit and the subsequent

Thanks to the peace-loving followers of Allah in the region.
Regan did not bomb his own troops nor did he act indirectly
to make it so.

abandonment of Lebanon to Hezbollah, the systematic

Had he taken the proper course -the invasion of Lebanon to
kick out all the bad guys, the Left would have had an aneurysm.
It was politically impossible.

destruction of any sort of energy policy that could reduce
US dependence on OPEC, and the contamination of

And just what would that have entailed? I worked in the
nuclear business briefly during that time. It was the
usual Left earth worshipers who killed that option (the only
good one we had then and now). Wind and solar were -then and
now - insufficiently effective to make much of a difference.
Passing increased CAFE numbers does not magically repeal
the laws of physics notwithstanding what the environmental
pantheists think.


the US blood bank with HIV.

And this was Reagan's doing how? In 1980 we barely were
beginning to really understand the HIV disease vector
let alone respond to it. And correct me if I'm wrong,
but aren't most blood banks *private*?


Of course it is an article of Faith with you that Ronald
Reagan personally torn down the iron curtain, the failed

No - 35 years of preceding cold warriors made it possible,
but Reagan played a flawless endgame. He did so in the face
of loud and foamy opposition from the Left and bet on the
goodness of the American ideas to prevail. He was right,
the Left was wrong (on this matter). The simple truth is
that Reagan really believed in the inherent goodness and
effectiveness of American ideals. The Left did not then,
and believes them less today.

war in Afghanistan, the internal reform that grew from the

Again, the best choice from a palette of lousy choices.

fertile ground planted by detente and the leadership of
men like Walesa and Gorbochev were only minor
contributing factors.

Walesa was a genuine leader with balls of steel. Gorbachev
was the water boy left to clean up after his team lost.
The USSR went to the game of world poker and didn't have the
underlying system to support it. They got gutted and Reagan
was the guy who had what it took to accelerate their demise.

--

FF