Why Some Libnerals Deserve Contempt

[SuperScout]

Kindly read this, and see if the contempt and loathing for some liberals is justified:

Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the left-leaning Internet journal Salon (www.salon.com), confirms what some Americans have only suspected: Liberals were cheering for the enemy in Iraq.
"I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong," Mr. Kamiya wrote last week. "Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings."


A greater question is how can a so-called morally sensitive people want for more American casualties? How many people does this miscreant claim to speak for? If this is the paradigm of the liberals, they deserve nothing but loathing. And in closing, I'll wager that no liberal or Democrat will disavow Kamiya's statement.

[MORTARDUDE]

where does all of this "hate-America" diatribe come from and what is it about....it seems "big business"....etc....is always at the core...but a huge percentage ( 50% ++ ) of the world lacks the basic freedoms we take for granted....and that these morons exercise without a second thought....freedom of assembly...freedom to choose your elected officials.....freedom to criticize the government... freedom of religion....FREEDOM TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO WHENEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT...( without harming someone else )......AND THE CLINCHER......
THEY NEVER SEEM TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SYSTEM......


just felt like ranting....I am fed up with all of this liberal, leftist, whining and bitching.....


Larry

[reconeil]

First-off SS, even if losing the bet about ANY lib ever disavowing ANYTHING,...such wouldn't even be recognizable. A never ending and impossible to be interrupeted wild-eyed litany, ranting and raving of every Republican/Conservative mistake in history (real, imagined or just the normally fabricated) will automatically preface ANY unlikely disavowing. The Preface for sure and guaranteed for EVERYTHING. ANY disavowing of ANYTHING,...eh?

Dude,
Have to sort-of disagree with your: "THEY NEVER SEEM TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SYSTEM..." simply because there never is one, especially if one thinks as an American and NOT coming from a foreign, ehtnic, racial, moral superiority perspective and thinking like most all of The Dem/Lib Sect do.

Still, and in fairness Fellas, what-the-hell-else would you expect from such a pompous and ALL KNOWING (what libs actually believe of themselves) fool?
Besides, some Libs/Dems are coming on so lame and biasedly anti-American lately,...that the whole Party of Lords & Carpetbaggers might self-destruct. Then,...We would really have something to celebrate this upcoming July 4th in America. One less enemy of America.

Neil :b:

[frisco-kid]

As a registered Democrat, I'd like to step up and say that this asshole doesn't speak for me. And as an American, and 2 tour VN Vet, I find his statements disgusting. But I don't expect you to believe that he doesn't represent ALL Demos. Or that I do. Anymore than I believe that you represent, and speak for, all Repubs.

[sfc_darrel]

It's called socialism and we don't like it and it always fails.

The idea that we should work with and co-operate with others makes a nice theory but it doesn't work in the real world because "people" don't work that way. They work for themselves, family, friends and neighbors, etc. with ever expanding circles of concern.

In addition to that, there are always people ready to take advantage of those who give. Reference all governments that, when given aid for their people, put aid in their personal bank accounts for their own use.

Saddam's son had UNICEF packages in his home.

The most recent charity we gave to was for pajamas for emergency family shelters here in Las Vegas. When families arrive there for a safe place to stay for a time, each child is given a new pair of pjs that they can keep.

Darrel & Joy

[bbeil]

BOTTOM LINE!!!
We live in a democracy here in the U.S.A. or you would not have been able to make the above statements that you have made.
That alone my friends makes us all participants of the greatest country and working government in the history of the world.
I know that it ain't perfect, but who is smart enough to know when it gets to be perfect?

[Keith_Hixson]

That line is so full of hypocrisy it would make a truly intelligent individual either laugh at the lack of intellectual depth and hypocrisy or cry because of the sad state of liberalism. It really is an anti-American statement, an anti-freedom of life speech. It is also a statement he wants more pain and suffering on both the Americans and Arab world. How sad! And, he believes he is morally superior!! The statement is a sad, sad statement of a very confuse man.

Keith :cd:

P.S. True liberals and true anti-war folks would never make a statement like that!

[grunt66]

I don't don't know where that un-American attitude is coming from either. I first noticed it when I came back from Vietnam .
I have decided that there are some real spoiled people in this country . In college I used to listen to them wanting to revolt and "fight at the barracaids." Coffee shop bs .
The Deomcratic party has been identified with liberals and that is a shame. I know a heap of working people who are registered Democrats and practicing conservatives.

[reconeil]

Yeah sure, hide-out in a Coffee Shop,...while simultaneously: :"Fight at the barracaids"??? And, I'm Audy Murphy.

The other GREAT OBSERVATION Grunt, is that all registered Democrats aren't necessarily brainwashed fools or just naturally deceptive liars. In fact, I've no doubt whatsover that most Dems/Libs are actually Good People. "They" might usually be misguided or deceived by their political leaders, but I believe that most are still Good People wishing nothing but the best for all Americans,...and even also including those of the vast majority and payers for everything (a truly liberal abnormality).

Neil

[Keith_Hixson]

Strong democrats, but they would never have made statements like that. There is a strange mind set that really doesn't belong in the Democratic Party or anywhere. I would call it the Liberal -Anarchist Party. They are critical of everything and all things and government is wrong. The military is evil even though our freedoms were purchase and are protected by our strong military. They just hate the government or really any authority. Yet they want strong laws protecting their little pet peeves, but if they did get those laws they couldn't enforce them because their anarchist spirit would have eliminated all authority. They believe themselves to be intellectuals but their thought patterns and ability to reason their philosophies through is so shallow that the average man on the street can instantly see big loop holes and gaps in their thinking. They believe they are morally superior but want to do away with any moral code and a lack of moral code makes them morally superior? Their whole philosophy just doesn't track.

I really believe they are idiots from a mental institution left to be on their own and have convinced themselves and others they are intellectually and morally superior because they have neither brains or morals.

Keith

[SuperScout]

Your observation that the Liberal-Anarchist Party is alive and well is also on-target. Sadly, this group seems to be taking over the Democratic Party - that spinning sound you hear is the likes of Sam Rayburn, John Nance Garner, and other traditional Democrats rolling over in their respective graves because of the abdication of the current Democratic party leadership to these anarchists. Far be it from me to impugn the character of every Democrat - that certainly wasn't my intent. I do find it more than simply dismaying that the far left turn the party has taken shows up more as anarchists and anti-Americanism than in anything positive.

[Keith_Hixson]

In the state of Washington we had a couple of Great U.S. Senators that were Democrats. Jackson and Magnuson. They were conservative but also loyal to the Party's Tradition of being a representive of the common person on the street. They would be rolling over in their graves at recent turns of extreme liberalism (I don't like to call it liberal because that is an insult to old fashion liberals) in the Democratic Pary. My daughter said, "we need more parties in the United States." Let the Ultra Liberals have their own party and the Ultra Conservatives have their own party then we'd know exactly what the candidates stand for.

The ultra liberal tree hugger, peta supporter, anarchist should have their own party then we would all know exactly what their philosophies are.

Keith

[Gimpy]

Er, sorry, I meant SUPER---he, he, he.

There you go again. STILL ridin that "one horse poney", ain't ya!

Now you see WHY I don't come around here much anymore.

and before you say it----yea, I pretty much "bash" the other "side" of the political spectrum frequently as well. BUT, and I defy you to prove DIFFERENTLY! Probably 98% (or more) of MY accusations and condemnations of the "REPUBS" are SOLELY directed at their piss-poor record of deception, denial and disgusting LACK of support of miliatry veterans (another point of factual information I defy you to subvert with your right-wing rhetoric).

No, I DO NOT---REPEAT---DO NOT--agree with that "jerk" you've mentioned in your "piece" afformentioned.

I AM a LIBERAL and damn PROUD OF IT! I am NOT proud of some (just a few however) of the other "liberals" in this country, or elsewhere for that matter, for some of their outrageous behavior and/or comments they've exibited. But, they have a RIGHT to their OPINION----Just as you do.

But, it appears that YOU on the other hand are in "lock-step" with most of the radical of right-wing extremists that your "party" has to offer---no MATTER that their outrageous record of piss-poor performance against the very majority of "us" veterans that you "rail" to so support yourself????? How in the name of hell can you DENY that these so-called "patriotic, flag-waving, so-called Christians of the moral right" are donig nothing BUT screwing the eyes out of us while "waving that flag"?????

YOU my friend need to find another "poney" to ride for awhile---you're wearing this one out!

Best regards----

[SuperScout]

If you will be so digitally dexterous, and page back up to the original title, you will note that I'm not impugning the intellect, loyalty, or body temperature of every liberal. Yet you other the other hand, are still riding your one trick pony (it's spelled without an "e") of condemning every Republican ever since they laid waste to Georgia. And I'm glad to read that you don't agree with the writer from Salon.com, but have yet to see any of your Democrat brethen utter one word in opposition to his venomous and obvious hatred of our American military. And yes, even this America-basher has the right to speak his piece, but that doesn't make his utterances any less repugnant, reprehensible, and revolting. Before you fall from your self-righteous perch as the self-anointed and only true defender of veterans' rights and benefits, you might be pleasantly surprised of what I have done behind the scenes to mobilize veterans to lobby for and to campaign for our just due. Now go back out to pature and ride your pony.

[Gimpy]

Since you're so "spell check" correct. You might want to go back and check your OWN. Libnerals?? Pature????

Seems we both possibly suffer from the same malady, huh??

At least we have SOMETHING in common.

BTW---I commend you on whatever efforts you may have employed to UNDO the abomination(s) against the veterans population (disabled or otherwise) that your repugnant (opps, I mean republican) brethren have heaped upon us.

Hmmmmmmmmm, you may have sumthin thare bout thet thare "layin waste to my glorious homeland of Jawga"---

Naw---I'm over that. It's just that the "NEW" repugnant party (damn I did it again!) is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO damn far to the RIGHT it's starting to look a little like that little Austrian fellers political party of the 1930's and 40's. Now don't get me wrong---I'm NOT sayin that ALL republicans are like that---just the so-called leadership of this current "bunch" of "cowboys" and Wall street "phenoms" and their coporate, theiving cohorts!

Whoops---I guess I better watch out, huh? There I go sayin bad things about ol Gee-Dubya again---good thing I don't have a career in country music or the movies---HUH?

[Gimpy]

Since you asked ME to "go back and read what you wrote"---you might like to try that exercise for yourself to see WHY I "responded" with such "vigor"!

And I quote, "you will note that I'm not impugning the intellect, loyalty, or body temperature of every liberal." Your words.

Yet in your OWN words again in your ORIGINAL post, and I quote , "Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the left-leaning Internet journal Salon (www.salon.com), confirms what some Americans have only suspected: Liberals were cheering for the enemy in Iraq." end quote! Your words again!

You my friend are implying and accusing that "Liberals"---ALL LIBERALS were in fact "cheering for the enemy"---and I damn well take exception to that PONY-$HIT!!! (did I spell THAT right????)

[SuperScout]

Did I write that, or was I quoting the author? Hmmmm. Hint: I was quoting the author.

And in case you haven't noted, there are many in the C&W music scene and in other entertainment fields, who are supporting the President. It is really sad that you have stooped to the level of the ultra far left in comparing the President to Hitler. Your grasp of history and of reality are slipping.

[Gimpy]

My "major" WAS world history?

Want to examine some "similarities" between "that" time and circumstances and some of the current adminstrations "tactics".

Let's see now.---Germany 1930's and 40's---In times of war, they said (the Nazi party) there could be only "one people, one nation, and one Commander-in-Chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuher"), and so his advocates in the media (radio personalities & some movie directors & producers) began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself!
Those questioning him and those policies were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans", and it was widely suggested and reported that they were "aiding the enemies of the state" by failing in "patriotic necessity" of supporting his policies of "total war" against the terrorists Nations attempting to "undo" the "peace loving democratic people of Germany". It was one of his most effective ways of to "stiffle dissent" and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the German army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once his "small war" of annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and appearance of "peace" returned---voices of opposition were raised again in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorists communists cells wasn't enough however to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent.

A "full-out War" was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the nation about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of "crony capitalism" that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the "middle class" way of life.

About a year after his "annexation" and "liberation" of Austria from it's "decadent & evil regime" Germany invaded Czechoslovakia: the Nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was deemed "un-patriotic", "aiding and abetting the enemy" and was therefore suppressed and eventually "outlawed" in the name of "national security"! It was the END of Germany's first experiment with "democracy".

As I conclude this little "review" of history, there are a few things worth mentioning and remembering. By the time of his successful and brief action to "liberate" Austria--in which almost no German blood was shed BTW---. Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world as Time magazine's "Man of The Year".

However, today, as we face financial, political and international crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930's and 40's however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses' of action to bring their nations back to power and prosperity. Germay's response was to use government to "empower" corporations and reward the society's richest individuals and their families, privatize most of the "commons" (some services previously ran by the government) under strict "party" supervision, stiffle dissent, strip people of individual constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual patriotic propaganda that promoted expanding the "need" for more war!

America (Roosevelt) on the other hand passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class living standards, passed and ENFORCED anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the "employer" of last resort through programs created to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, replant forests and improve the nations water and energy supplies.

Lastly, reflecting again on "that time" and it's similarities to "our times". The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Miffin Company) gave us this definition of the form of government the German "democracy" had become become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of "suppress dissent" and using "war" as a means to keep power: the "definition" is as follows--
"fas-cism" (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership and interests, together with belligerent nationalism."

Now don't get me wrong---I'm NOT saying that Gee-Dubya is another "Hitler" and ALL republicans are "facists"----But, I AM saying that those among us that are NOT "aware" of what "history" WAS ----may well be aiding it's "resurgence" by blindly supporting all that is being suggested by the leadership in Washington now! Just because we support our "brothers in arms" does NOT mean we must agree with our country's leaders "reasons" to send them into "harms way"! Sadly, I feel some among us have fallen into that "trap" of "blind faith" in some of our leaders decisions.

Anyway---that's enough "History" for today, Super---still think I'm "slipping"? If so, it's back INTO reality my friend.

Maybe you're sniffing to much of that "mesquite" smoke on your Bar-B-Que down yonder in "Cowboy" land to gret a REAL grasp of "reality", huh??

Have a good one------------------ :D :D

[blues clues]

oh gimpy old Hitler also said that after the czec. take over that he had no one else to fight,now where have we heard that before.

razz

[1IDVET]

In my opinion, the democratic party has shot itself in the foot, whilst it was in their mouth, during this adventure in the Middle East.
They will be trying to recover from this for the next 2 elections at least.
I think that California's leftists are also going to be in for a rude awakening in the next elections as well.
Dollar to a donut on that.
The liberals have taken this fine state into a $35 billion deficit, think the voters won't notice?
Think the voters won't notice who was against this even after success?
Can the dem's fix it? I don't think they can.
I think they have sealed their fate.
Chalk one up for the good guys.

[Gimpy]

Not that I don't share some of your disdain for a "few" of the "demos" in Calf. as well for their part in helping create the budget "deficit" by supporting the energy deregulation bill in 1996 that caused the energy crisis. Which BTW is the REAL reason for your states "deficit" now. But, if your REALLY trying to "blame" someone (or political party) for the mess you guys are in----you HAVE to start with then Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and the republicans in the State legislature that pushed so hard to have this bill signed into law back then.

"Conservative" estimates place the costs to taxpayers for this Kenneth Lay & Enron led debacle that screwed California somewhere near $40 billion!

Anyway, that don't have much to do with the "history lesson" I was attempting to "enlighten" my friend Super with---But, it does have to do with some bone-head decisions started by a few of the republican politicians out your way, dosen't it?

have a nice day,
:D :D :D :D

[MORTARDUDE]

Gimpy, you managed to equate the Nazi Germany of 1933-45 with the USA of 2003...Congratulations.... I guess....

However, the survivors of Dachau, Auschwitz, Buchenwald et al... might have a different take on your "comparisons"...I do suspect....


Larry

[Gimpy]

I certainly HOPE the survivors of those "camps" you've mentioned would have difficulty drawing "comparisons" to the things I mentioned and their experiences. For God's sake man---I don't think we're even CLOSE to what the "Nazi's" did to those folks. My "intent" was to offer the "simlarities" of circumstances and political ideologys, assertions, theories and facts regarding the aims that constitute a "comparison" of the sociopolitical programs for each of these countrys political leadership during the times indicated. Like it or not----those ARE the facts! To the extent that OUR Constitution is still intact---the choice is again OURS to make SURE those survivors you mentioned don't get to make that comparison you spoke about !!

[Keith_Hixson]

Gimpy,

You are a liberal in the old fashion sense. But these new liberals are something else. They need another name, those anti-american thinkers. I may not agree with a lot of liberalism but I can respected it if they are truly American in their loyalities. Which I know you are.

Keith

[SuperScout]

As long as others' comments are going to change the original subject matter, try some sniffs of reality of math: with Gov. Grey-out Davis, the state of California started out with an $11 billion surplus, and at the end of his last term, had a deficit of $35 billion. Now, not even a fool, er... maybe some fools, will try to lay off this entire amount on some alleged if not real price gouging; so far, there has not been any convictions for this practice, only accusations.

Keith, as I mentioned early on, these so-called liberals have tainted if not thoroughly poisoned the once proud Democratic party, and should start their own party; maybe they'll call themselves by a more honest term, like Let's Blame America for all the Wrongs of Mankind Party. The backlash of the voters for these insane comparisons of Bush and Hitler, for the economic boycott of grossly uninformed entertainers will be the evidence of people doing the correct thing, as 1ID VET as posted.

[Gimpy]

Now, let's see if I've got this NEW republican math figured out now Supermathmatician.

Democrat Gray Davis goes INTO office with $11 billion surplus in the states treasury and now has a large "deficit" instead, and you and some others of those "foolish" folks say it's ALL his and the demos "fault, huh??

But, "your boy" Gee-Dubya--a republican--goes into office with the LARGEST budget SURPLUS in the history of the U.S. of A. and in LESS time than it took the Davis administration in California, the Bush administration has "racked up" (and it's gettin BIGGER as we speak) a national "deficit" that is FAR more serious to the country than California's deficit----BUT--(NOW comes the REALLY "foolish part")--according to your wondeful NEW MATH formula----Bush and the repugnants (whoops there I go again, that damn little finger just will NOT behave, sorry), I mean republicans ARE NOT TO BLAME----HUH????

Sounds like a good, sound, well thought out republican response to me awright. Open MOUTH and insert your cowboy BOOT again my deah SuperSleuth. Your attempt at "logic" once again has shown the true "nature" of the "right-minded" folks in control of "your" party now. Subvert, deceive, deny culpability in any wrongs, and continue to "hammer" the other side (liberal OR moderates---it makes no difference, they'll ALL be a "threat" to this NEW math you so proudly speak of)

Speaking of "accusations" and "allegations"---check this out.

Maybe you'll learn a little more "history"--seems you didn't care to comment on the "facts" of your last "history lesson" to much, huh?? Probably because you can't "refute" the factual comparisons mentioned???

**************************

Published 2:15 a.m. PST Thursday, April 3, 2003
Gov. Gray Davis felt vindicated but not rewarded.
Federal regulators agreed with just about every allegation Davis made about the California energy crisis -- that electricity sellers had systematically abused the state's energy market to drive up prices.



Although acknowledging rampant "price manipulation" and "abuses of market power," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission indicated last week that it would order sellers to refund about $3.3 billion, or much less than the amount demanded by California. FERC's final decision is still pending.

"My message to FERC is, 'Thanks for the comforting words, but show me the money,' " Davis said in a conference call with reporters.

Why is FERC planning to limit the refund to $3.3 billion? Because as it goes over the wholesale electricity prices charged in 2000-01, FERC seems to be looking at a relatively narrow window of time, California officials complain.

Essentially, the $3.3 billion covers the period between Oct. 2, 2000, when FERC put energy companies on notice that it might order refunds, and Jan. 17, 2001, when the state of California began buying power on behalf of its struggling utility companies, said Erik Saltmarsh, executive director of the California Electricity Oversight Board.

Power sellers said they did nothing wrong, will try to whittle down the $3.3 billion figure and will fight any California effort to increase the refunds.

State officials said they're likely to go to court if FERC doesn't raise the refund total.

"The governor's still committed to going after the full amount," said Richard Katz, a senior adviser to Davis. "He believes California was seriously ripped off."

Although FERC hasn't made a final decision, the agency has indicated it could broaden its timeline for refunds and look at prices charged before October 2000, Saltmarsh said. That would add to the refund total, he said.

But any refunds it orders for that pre-October period would be limited, and specific to individual companies found to have engaged in market misconduct, he said. FERC won't order sweeping refunds affecting all the energy sellers, as it has done for the post-October period, he said.

An explanation: Refunds are being ordered on a kind of "no-fault" basis for the post-October period. Companies whose prices exceeded a cost formula established by FERC will have to make refunds, whether they did anything wrong or simply took advantage of prevailing prices.

For the pre-October period, any refunds would be required only of companies that actually manipulated the market to cause sky-high prices. Other companies, able to reap high prices by following the market leader, won't be punished.

FERC spokesman Kevin Cadden said his agency can't go after every company for the pre-October trades. October was when FERC notified market participants of the possibility of refunds, and it would violate federal law to go after all the energy companies for high prices, Cadden said. FERC would be permitted to seek refunds only from the actual wrongdoers, he said.

That's unfair, California officials say. It's like going after a jewel thief but not the thief's friends, who got some of the jewels, said Vickie Whitney, a deputy California attorney general.

"Everybody benefited from the manipulation," she said. "You shouldn't penalize some, and let everybody (else) keep the jewels."

As for the period after Jan. 17, 2001, when the state government jumped into the electricity-buying business on a daily basis, Cadden said FERC will scrutinize those purchases for possible refunds.

But Saltmarsh said it appears FERC actually will ignore the vast majority of the state's spot-market transactions.

Instead, he said, FERC will focus only on a tiny slice of the state's deals -- those made at the very last minute through the auspices of the California Independent System Operator, which runs the state's transmission grid. The state's direct spot-market purchases aren't eligible for refunds, Saltmarsh said.

"It just seems they're really disinclined to give a refund to the government of the state of California, even though they know the consumers would benefit," Saltmarsh said.

California's disastrous deregulation scheme called for the state's big utilities to sell most of their power plants to outside companies and then buy the electricity on a daily basis.

With Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric bled dry financially by soaring wholesale costs, the state Department of Water Resources started buying power for them in January 2001 at the direction of the Legislature. The power cost the state treasury billions of dollars, which the three utilities' ratepayers are paying back over time.

FERC stymied California on one more point last week: The federal agency indicated it won't cancel the billions in long-term power supply contracts the state signed with energy suppliers in spring 2001.

The state argued that those contracts were overpriced because the state was forced to negotiate them at a time when spot-market prices were raging out of control. Because those spot prices were the result of market manipulation, the contracts should be set aside, the state said.

FERC made no final decision but two of the three commissioners, including Chairman Patrick Wood, said they were leaning toward keeping the contracts in place.

Nevertheless, Wood said, FERC was firmly in the consumers' corner.

"This commission is acting to ensure that customers pay just and reasonable prices," he said after FERC acted last week.

In an accompanying report, FERC's staff said it found scores of examples of market manipulation by energy sellers. The staff said generators dragged their feet in resuming operations following shutdowns for repairs. It said marketers large and small "gamed" the system through trading schemes inspired by, and sometimes executed in cooperation with, once-powerful Enron Corp.

For their part, generators and marketers say they're blameless -- and insisted they're prepared to fight if California tries to extract more refunds.

************************
Yea, their "blameless" allright----they must be using that NEW republican math your proposing, huh Super??

Still waiting on some comments about that little "history lesson"----whatzamatta, having difficulty seeing the "truth" put before you so blatantly obvious that it's kinda frightful, huh? Yea, ME TOO---I know what you mean !!!

Have a nice day,
:D :D :D :D

[Gimpy]

Thanks for your positive comments---I really appreciate them considering some of the other "responses" I've seen lately.

PS---Don't believe all that "pony-crap" ol SuperShouter is puttin out. He's gettin as bad as some of his ULTRA-right-wing zealots on the radio with all that "insane" nonsense he's spoutin about. He'd have you believe that ALL so-called "liberals" are supposedly "tainted" in their beliefs and actions. There are just as many "tainted" right-wing lunatics in the republican party as there are "tainted" folks in the democratic party. He just dosen't want to admit it.

Anyway---you haven't seen him try and "refute" any of the "facts" I've posted so far have you. Nope--cause it would be ridiculous to try and say these "comparisons" of past and current history aren't TRUE!

[SuperScout]

Your tired, repetitive and totally unoriginal blather is typical of a closed mind, not that I expected anything different. You didn't refute the facts that Davis started with $11 billion surplus and ended with a $35 billion deficit, nor can you lay this off, no pun intended, on price manipulation. All you can do is trot out the fact that the current administration has incurred a deficit, while conveniently forgetting the fact that an enormous amount was spent in NY, DC and PA for the 11 Sep attack, that a successful regime change was effected in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, and that yes, the Republican controlled Congress added much too much pork to the appropriations bills.

If there was malfeasance in the California power case, let the indictments begin. You might also examine the totally idiotic way that Davis and his administration bought power, in ways that still defy logic and good business sense.

And getting back to the original subject, it is still a deafening silence from the leftist or even the centrists, if there are any, of the Democratic party for the cretin calling for more American casualties. Like the MF at Columbia who called for a million Mogadishus, if they step in front of my car, I just might have a sudden Vietnam flashback, and a simultaneous and catastrophic brake failure.

[Gimpy]

However "unoriginal" my "blather" may appear to another "closed mind (yours for example)"---AND, speaking of "deafening silence"-->One, if you'll RE-read the article I posted it's apparently OBVIOUS where the majority of that state budget deficit came from, the deregulation of energy prices led by then Republican governor Pete Davis and the republican led state house! The ensueing debacle of greedy, price gouging on energy prices is the (root cause"!

As for that fellow in your article---I can ONLY assume that his ridiculous comments were so absurd that most (if not all) decent, honest Lberals and moderates in the democratic party party find them so disgusting and unlike any opinions shared by them, that they don't WARRANT any "comment" or further discussion! The guys a jerk---and I agree with your "anaolgy" of "brakes not working" if I happen to observe him in the crosswalk.

Now, how about YOUR "deafening silence" regarding the "political" similarities" aformentioned in my little "history lesson"!!

[Seascamp]

Inevitably people will vote with their feet and wallets and this transcends political orientation. Currently the SF bay area is experiencing a significant negative population growth and the exit of employers. San Francisco proper is facing devastating loss of property taxes because office space and up-scale residential space is going empty and thus the landlords are rebelling against the taxation level. Other California counties and some western States are the beneficiaries of this exodus and our rural county picked up some compatable light industries and associated employment. So one area?s bust is another?s boom. The reasons for the exodus are many and more or less find their core in the prevailing taxation and expense levels. And to some extent, the overall anti-business ambiance via the politicos is a motivation as well. In my opinion, to have golden eggs there has to be geese and if the local political attitude is in the screw the geese mode, the inevitable occurs. The Bay Area is far too nice and class area to stay on the backside of this situation forever, but no doubt some lessons will be learned and books will be written on what it means to try to be all things to all people.

Scamp

[SuperScout]

Time for a reality check: the deregulation of energy prices in CA which occurred in the Wilson administration did not cause the $40 billion deficit in the Gray administration. The majority of the costs were because the state legislature of CA went on a spending binge unlike anything else in their history, and now the Democratic controlled legislature is wringing their collective hands, trying to figure out how to pay for it all. Go back and research the state budgets and the truth will smack you in the face. And since the Democrats control the legislature and the state house, why can't they fix whatever problem they identify?

The "similarities" you posted in your vitriolic attempt to compare Hitler with the President are beneath contempt, and not worthy of comment or response.

[Gimpy]

and you know what kind of "holes" are abundant my friend. As the old saying goes "we ALL have them---however "flawed" yours' may be. All evidence appears to be contrary to "your opinion" RE: the majority causes for this deficit---as most (if not all) major newspapers and broadcast news sources in California have reported. The "evidence" which supports the "root" cause is STILL the energy "rape" of California by stupid politicians and some of your Texan buddies led by Enron! As far as "fixing" their problems created by this now historical "fiasco", the democratic majority legislature and Governor Davis have "identified" the "solution(s). It's just now left up to the FERC out that way (led by a new Bush appointee, and so far apparently unwilling to "unscrew the mess") to offer up the "relief" that every freakin citizen out that way KNOWS the answer too. RETURN THE MONIES THAT THEY WERE ROBBED OF BY THIS FAILED SO-CALLED DEREGULATION PLAN!

As for YOUR unwillingness to offer up any "credible" response to the afformentioned "history lesson" regarding the political comparisons and set(s) of circumstances involved. I should have expected no better. A typical "right-wing" response----deny, deceive and disavow ANY and/or ALL explicit, non-exculpatory evidence that may offer any "truth" to the charges at hand! If you HAD a response "worth" the effort to condone some of the behavior exibited by the "leadership" of "your" party which could offer up any enthusiastic and justifiable retort to the comparisons "drawn"--you WOULD HAVE DONE SO. Your "failure" to attempt this has NOTHING to do with "contemp" or "worthyness"---only your failure to INDENTFY any honest denial of the TRUTH mentioned in that "history lesson".

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that!

PS---The "truth" is certainly difficult to subvert when it is sooooooo evident, huh???

[MORTARDUDE]

As it happens I had a minor in History in college..

I am just about finished reading a book entitled "Germans : Biography of an Obsession" by George Bailey...paperback.. Avon books... 1972

( started it some months ago.. your posts got me to finish it )

"A penetrating examination of the German mind, the culture and the complicated soul of modern Teutonic history..."

It shows quite clearly the reasons behind the rise of Hitler and his henchman...the prime one being the "punishment" the victors of WW1 and the impotent League of Nations visited upon Germany....it was simply an impossible price to pay ( $ 33 billion dollars ! ) and bankrupted the country to such an extent, that fascism was inevitable....( I used to collect postage stamps and still have some of the 10,000,000,000 ( Billion ) Mark stamps that they had to use to mail letters with.... )

Your "history lesson", though quite "entertaining", fails to surmise that we summarily quashed the fascist states of Japan, Italy and Germany and their various puppet "states" ... our systems of laws and government being diametrically opposed to these "states" run by psychotic despots...

We also have not subjugated, tortured, enslaved, cremated, or otherwise tormented the citizens of Italy, Japan, Germany, Belgium, France, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, South Korea, Panama, Grenada, Domincan Republic, Haiti, Phillipines, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, ( not to mention Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Albania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia... and all the other countries freed with the fall of Communism in 1989 ...), and all the other countries we have intervened in since Dec 7, 1941..... on the contrary... they are all in far better shape, I would say....

In stark contrast to say....Poland in 1939...China in the 1930s after the Japanese invasion....Russia during the German invasion of 1941 etc.. etc....

As for your praise of Roosevelt...sure he did lots of good things...the situation required it... ( have posted a blurb at the end about Smoot-Hawley...something very few know about that era by the way... )

However....this :

The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933
From: President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To: The United States Congress
Dated: 5 April, 1933
Presidential Executive Order 6102


... led directly to our current situation vis-a-vis "money" backed by "nothing but good faith" ( and the ability to churn out unlimited amounts of "paper fiat money" and "loan" it to banks and create any amount of "wealth" or "debt" needed ) and is directly responsible for all the humongous international debt fostered by The World Bank and all of the other nefarious world-banking mechanisms...


Your comparison of Nazi Germany, Hitler and the rest, to anything remotely corresponding to our current laws, traditions, and Constitution is personally, to me,.... repugnant, ludicrous, and actually,.... laughable...if it wasn't so serious... ( I have been fortunate enough over the past 40 years to have become friends with a refugee from Latvia, a survivor of Treblinka, and a member of a partisan group in Hungary.... their stories from WW2 imbued into me a vivid sense of what they had to endure thanks to a system of "government" that had as its single-minded purpose to systematically crush and destroy freedom, democracy, and every form of religion....

I was tempted to just let it go with my previous comment, but since you kept agitating...I have responded.....

I would love to debate the issues with you, if we could just move to a slightly higher plane of reference.. OK ?

Larry

+++++++++++++


Smoot-Hawley Tariff
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930 raised U.S. tariffs to historically high levels. The original intention behind the legislation was to increase the protection afforded domestic farmers against foreign agricultural imports. Massive expansion in the agricultural production sector outside of Europe during World War I led, with the postwar recovery of European producers, to massive agricultural overproduction during the 1920s. This in turn led to declining farm prices during the second half of the decade. During the 1928 election campaign, Republican Presidential candidate Herbert Hoover pledged to help the beleaguered farmer by, among other things, raising tariff levels on agricultural products. But once the tariff schedule revision process got started, it proved impossible to stop. Calls for increased protection flooded in from industrial sector special interest groups and soon a bill meant to provide relief for farmers became a means to raise tariffs in all sectors of the economy. When the dust had settled, Congress had agreed to tariff levels that exceeded the already high rates established by the 1922 Fordney-McCumber Act and represented among the most protectionist tariffs in U.S. history.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the ?beggar-thy-neighbor? policies (policies designed to improve one?s own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations.

The Smoot-Hawley tariff represents the high-water mark of U.S. protectionism in the twentieth century. Thereafter, beginning with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, American commercial policy generally emphasized trade liberalization over protectionism. The United States generally assumed the mantle of champion of freer international trade, as evidenced by its support for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

[reconeil]

First-off, I fully understand where you're (no doubt many other devout Dems/Libs/Leftist followers also) comin-from. After all, and as seen on TV many times, it's quite apparent that NO ONE is better at pontificating self/clique/cult-serving,aggrandizing and deceptive people-controlling bull,...than Dems/Libs/Leftist leaders and rulers, fanatical fundamentalist Mullahs and such normally do worldwide.
Hey,..all alluded to put P.T. Barnum to shame.

So, and since grown-up and wiser, and seeing no point in debating why all-knowing, all-caring and morally superior Dems/Libs/Leftists should control and rule America (or not), I'll merely pose a question to: "A History Major",...since this H.S. Grad never majored in anything ("Major" in Recon Scouts from age 17 to 21 excluded). Plus, and from A Southern Rebel one hopes getting an answer to something that this: "Yankee/Rebel" could never truly quite understand.

The question being: Why is it that most all Black American Voters (about 90%) alway vote Democrat and/or against: "The Party of Lincoln" that freed them, while history tells that The Democrat Carpetbaggers from The North during Reconstruction Times instigated and condoned the blatant thievery of Blacks' lands, burning-out of Blacks, lynching of Blacks, and in general keeping Southern Blacks down and in their place until The Sixtees forced otherwise?

Regardless, and even though the first paragraph pretty-much answered my very own question about the societal malady,...I still would like a second (and more, and more, etc. etc.) opinion.

Neil :cd:

[Gimpy]

You haven't even addressed "the issues" so far?

The "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act" of 1930 was NOT sponsered by Roosevelt (elected in 1933)---but, in fact promoted by then republican president Hoover---so----what's your "point"??

*********************
Quote, "Your "history lesson", though quite "entertaining", fails to surmise that we summarily quashed the fascist states of Japan, Italy and Germany and their various puppet "states" ... our systems of laws and government being diametrically opposed to these "states" run by psychotic despots... ", end quote.

**********************
Why should I have to "surmise" this---everyone with plausible knowledge of the facts of this time period should be aware of the final outcome of this war and the previous "opposition" to the states run by "psycotic despots" and the subsequent elimination of their fascists states and form of governments. I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that we (the U.S.A.) should have taken the position we did in WWII. That is EXACTLY one of the "points" I was refering to in the previous posts. I am attempting to make SURE that "appearences" of "good faith & good intentions" with "honorable goals" for our nations citizens are NOT missrepresented and misapplied for any particular politicians "whim".

***********************

Here's some MORE "history" for you to "chew on"---sound familar to todays "events"??

*****************************
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.

His coarse use of language - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist were going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings.

Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will."

As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others who may support these terrorist, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity."

Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true. Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals."

He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at our disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors.

This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas.

He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity.

He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time."

Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will.

******************************

As I've said before----I am NOT saying that Gee-Dubya is another Hitler! I am saying however the comparisons to "those times and circumstances" and the obvious "similarities" of SOME of the "tactics" imployed by the "political" leadership of each are worth reporting and understanding before we may find ourselves in a MORE similar situation as the citizens of Germany did during that time!

Now---if THAT appears to be "repugnant, ludicrious, and laughable" to you---then if you'll be so glad to show me that "higher plane" you're mentioning for our further "discussion(s)" I'd be MORE than glad to accomodate you!

My "sources" are the unequivocal "facts" of history. Possibly in the course of your "minor" in history you've read these "sources"??

PS--If you have -- please advise ol SuperShouter the location of these "sources" for his reference---it seems he's having some difficulty in "comprehending" the confluence of disdainfully shocking evidence to support these conclusions. Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

:) :) :) :)

[Gimpy]

Fist off----NO, you DON'T understand where I'm coming from---and sadly, that's not a good thing (but I'll admit it's folks like you that keep me "on my toes---and thanks for that!)

But, to answer you're "question" without having to get to "technical" and since you're so "grown up and wiser" now and SHOULD be able to figure that out for yourself---why don't YOU go out there and ASK a few black folks that "question" yourself???

You may possibly quite agitated and dismayed at their answers, ya know??

Pontificately yours,

[reconeil]

Still, I would have preferred you gave me your answer to the historical facts about America's Southern Blacks and Blacks in general, instead of telling me to ask some Blacks the very same question. Though, thanks for not pontificating and/or religiously preaching, since not being able to answer the question favorably and/or in line with your Party dictates (The Dem/Lib/Leftist evasive norm), as you have done with others here. Besides,...short and sweet is nice.

Regardless, forget about my asking such an obviously embarrasing question to any Black Americans. I figure the 90% or so of Blacks that always vote for The Carpetbagger Democrats over: "The Party of Lincoln (Blacks' Patron Saint)" have already embarrased themselves enough. Granted, not as self-embarrasing as some Dem/Lib/Leftist leaders normally spouting pro foreign and anti-American nonsense do,...but still embarassing enough.

Neil :b:

[Gimpy]

What makes you think that asking a black person the reason they so overwhelming support democrats over republicans would be an "embarrasment" to them?? Oh----wait a minute, NOW I get it -- it would be embarrasing to YOU, huh???

Talk about your "side-steping"----typical repugnant (damn, there I go again) I meant (or did I??) republican answer.

I've an idea for you--why don't YOU post a NEW thread on that subject and see what kind of response YOU get?? Had I the time or inclination to further your "education" on that subject I would most assurdly do so. However, I'm currently attempting to expand the historical "knowledge" of other events, persons, times and sociopolitical agendas of those who appear to be somewhat suffering from a NEW MATH and historical "amnesia". Ya know what I mean.

Ta--Ta,

[reconeil]

This is just like on TV, when any Dem/Lib/Leftists are asked any questions that they superiorily, all-knowingly and indignantly deem to be repugnant, since counter their Party Line and/or fanatically held cult/religious beliefs.

Still, I would suggest you watch such TV, since the American, French, UN or Socialist-like similar thinking authoritarian-hypocrits alluded to,...do such with so much more class. Hell,..."They" actually convince some fools into believing their dribble and/or perverted form of history is actually true. I think that the con works so well because the very same words are repeated over and over by all such power and control types.

Plus, Oh Great Historian, and regarding FDR, the truth of the matter is that it wasn't for WWII, a great many Americans would still be planting trees and working on roads, to make ends meet.
I'll give the 4-term Dem President an A+ For Effort. But, that's it.
On that Pearl Harbor and/or that political nonsense: "I don't want war, Eleanor doesn't want war, and Fowler doesn't war bit,...eh?

Neil

[Gimpy]

"party line", etc., etc., answers. What about giving US a substantive or even adequately "all-knowingly" reason for your supposed answer for being "embarrassed" to ask a black person the reason they OVERWHELMINGLY vote against "your" repugnants????

You appear to be in such a state of "unknowingness" about the subject--Oh--but I forgot---your main "rhyme & reason" of political "party line" positions evidently is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO abhorent and Un-inclusive of the "folks" who your question(s) are intended to "figure out"---that damned if I wouldn't be embarrased myself. YOU brought UP that subject---now you appear to be trying to "dodge that bullet", HUH??? Now I wonder why???

Typical "right-wing" behavior.

Ta-Ta,

[Gimpy]

"similar thinking authoritarian-hypocrits".

Your comment regarding how to "make ends meet" with the "use" of "War" rather than the programs instituted under FDR's administration is no doubt adding substantial weight to my "arguement(s) that folks of "similar thinking" of your persuasion conclude that is OK for governments to "perform" as did Hitlers during the 1930's and 40's. It "sounds" like you're saying it's OK to have a "preemptive" war if it means that, and I quote you, "and regarding FDR, the truth of the matter is that it wasn't for WWII, a great many Americans would still be planting trees and working on roads, to make ends meet. ", end quote!

Hmmmmmmmm, let's examine what one of this nations greatest military leaders and former republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower had to say about "preventive war", or if you may "preemptive war"----and again I quote.

"All of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time....or anytime....I don't believe there is such a thing; and frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953,
upon being presented with plans to wage "preventive" war to disarm Stalins' Soviet Union.

Another great American .........Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson had THIS to say about the "subject"--Again I quote.

"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an ILLEGAL means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions."
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
the Chief American prosecutor at the Nuremburg War Crimes trials, in his opening statement to the War Crimes Tribunal.

Sooooooooo.............it appears there are (or have been) several (I can find more if you like---there ARE more that have similar positions) prominent, highly respected, intelligent and patriotic, God fearing Christian, truly American HEROS' that would find disfavor and disagreement with "your" observations and/or "position(s)" regarding "WAR", huh??

You don't suppose they were " asked any questions that they superiorily, all-knowingly and indignantly deem to be repugnant, since counter their Party Line and/or fanatically held cult/religious beliefs.", now do you??? Why of course not----you were too young and unaware of "history" at the time to really understand what they were speaking about so I doubt you would "challenge" their ideas, or ideals, huh?? But now, since you are SO "aware" of history................Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[reconeil]

Sorry to take so long getting-back-at-cha. But, since Saturday night and all last night,...I figured that Atlantic City would be much more fun than playing your rigged game of Leftist favoring political: "Trivial Pursuits".

Regardless, and this being another day, I'd suggest you lighten-up if NOT: "Connected". After all, why-pop-a-gasget for absolutely no worthwhile reason at all.

However, if: "Connected", desiring power and money, beholding to, affiliated and/or where your bread is buttered forget my suggestion, since going against a political flock or congregation in The South can be quite hazzardous to your health. Hell, from only one area in The South (re. Little Rock) going up to The Beltway,...they're still counting the bodies of those not wise enough to go along with The Program and try to: "Turn States" on phoney gods.

So, and if: "Connected", just keep wisely doing what you're doing for greater longevity,...or as Andy might say,..."Stay Healthy".

Neil :b:

[Gimpy]

I hear ya,-------- whatever.

I just figured that you, the "dude", and ol SuperSleuth wanted a real discussion of the "issues" regarding the "history lesson" from a "higher plane". If that's possible!

Anyway, hope you did well in Atlantic City--and stayed away from those one-arm bandits!

[SuperScout]

Perhaps I can chalk it up to excessive oak pollen, higher than normal humidity, or overwork, but I must confess to only now having had an intellectual epiphany about how this thread has run its corrupted course. What started out as my words of condemnation of a liberal and his wish to bring harm, injury and even death to American warriors has been hijacked by another liberal who wants nothing more than to vent his hatred of George W. Bush and anyone else calling themselves either a Republican or a Conservative. This latter liberal is so filled with antipathy and bitterness, and is so resentlful of the popularity of the President, and of the military success the coalition forces have achieved in Iraq, that his venonous bilge has spilled out in any forum he can find. Again, sorry it took me so long to realize his pathetic little game of being on the losing end of the political spectrum.

[MORTARDUDE]

that our "self-proclaimed historian in residence" didn't use the Spanish-American War ( U.S.S. Maine ) and the Tonkin Gulf as examples of spurious acts committed to lead us more easily into war....I was only a "minor" in history, and it was a State school, and I really didn't have may heart in it, since I was looking over my shoulder at the draft....so I must have missed the courses that he took....I agree...his dislike for Conservatives, particularly the Fundamentalist Christian variety, is very apparent. We all have faith in something. Some in the things of this world, some in the next, and some in both.

Larry

[Gimpy]

Ya know.

Talk about "pathetic". You stay around here and continually post your "drival" and lambast and ridicule liberals accusing them of some of the most vile and unamerican nonsense known to man and then expect that other "liberals" are just supposed to sit back and listen to your horse$hit without telling the TRUTH about YOUR political "persuasions" and party's leadership activities??

I think NOT!

Like my mama used to say---If you can't stand the HEAT :d: :d: :d: :d: :d: --you best stay out of the kitchen!!!!!!!!!

Just because YOU don't like to see (or will dare to admit) some of your own political "dirty laundry" aired for all to see has NO BEARING on the truthfulness of it!

Sorry fellas----This time I ain't goin NO-WHERE!

I got more---STAY TUNED!!!!

[SuperScout]

Ain't it amazing how I can post a criticism of some liberals, and then some liberals agree, and then they complain about my posting!! Talk about paranoid schizophrenia! But then to show his true colors, he tries to turn the show into an anti-Republican diatribe, with the obligatory sidebar of whining about the recently won war. If he were more capable, he would stick to the topic at hand. Oh, well, when I consider the source of this venon and bile, I fully understand.

[Gimpy]

Show me where I have been "whining" about the war----afraid NOT there SuperStretcher(of the truth that is)----Just like I said---YOU can't tke the heat!

[reconeil]

Granted, you're greatly outnumbered here by those thinking more sensibly and practically and/or less staunchly political or forced having the mandatory herdlike mentality (above all else), as is normally required by Leftists.

Still, Me Thinks thou dost protest too much,...especially since I dread the thought of if: "Old Slick" and Party had been calling-the-shots during these troubling times,...even though; "His Slickness" and foreign (even foreign enemies) patronizing cronies helped cause these troubling times by their naivete' and ineptness to start with.

Still Gimpy, and in fairness to your klan, I must admit that Mr. Bill Clinton is really showing his expertise lately on foreign affairs, while also coming across quite patriotic and a champion of The Military. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! What an actor!

Neil :b: