Extracted from Thread

Bill C said:

Howard I'm off that treadmill.

I've just gotta point out that you are the leading
contributor to this particular off-topic thread.

There are many people here that groove on the
treadmill. Howard, Kurgan, Stevie. Kunich is hardly
the only one that does so in a way that is so
predictable and formulaic as to invite parody.

But no one enjoys the treadmill more than you.

Bob Schwartz

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

SchwartzSoft seems to be beta testing their new Troll 2008 trolling
module on rbr rather than alt.test.

I'm not sure if its a bug or a undocumented feature, but the first
attribution is incorrect. And it doesn't seem to support cross posting
yet.

Bill C said:

Actually Tom is more respectful than those other clowns, and was trying to
be until he was purposefully misunderstood, and still showed pretty damned
good restraint.

I don't recall commenting on the thread restraint module.
However if it shows restraint it could be a bug.

On Feb 11, 10:07 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Howard I'm off that treadmill.

I've just gotta point out that you are the leading
contributor to this particular off-topic thread.

There are many people here that groove on the
treadmill. Howard, Kurgan, Stevie. Kunich is hardly
the only one that does so in a way that is so
predictable and formulaic as to invite parody.

But no one enjoys the treadmill more than you.

Bob Schwartz

Bob I do still enjoy the discussion. The particular treadmill I was
referring to was in regards to Howard only. Discussion requires give
and take, and I don't feel that's anything close to a two way street
with Howard on politics. It makes me a much richer, and more
knowledgeable person when you folks provide new sources, ideas,
explain when and how you reached them, where you're coming from and
why, etc...
Kurgan, D-y, Steve Bornfeld, Ryan, Kyle, Ben, especially RC, and
others have all done a great job with this, and fairly frequently
caused me to do a rethink and reassessment based on solid give and
take backed by information and sources that are provided for everyone
to see.
I've never seen Howard do that. I put where I'm coming from right out
front, provide the sources that form my thinking so that other people
can review them too.
Howard and I live in mutually unrecognizeable worlds. I don't accept
what he says is reality, and vice versa. I know that I'm massively
less hidebound and doctrinaire because I do have good things to say
about folks coming from the left, and have even gone so far as to
defend folks like Hillary and Bill. The first time Howard stands up
for anyone to the right of Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda I'll be
stunned.
Right now McCain is being blasted by the extremists on the right for
exactly the mirror image Leiberman is being blasted for. The folks
doing the blasting are mirror images too. IMO they are both moderates
whose problem is that they occasionally think for themselves, and vote
their beliefs instead of the extremist party dictate.
Bill C

Kyle Legate said:

Bill C said:

Kyle it's pretty obvious that I'm with Ryan here. I really do think
that Tom's story was told to highlight Sheldon's honesty, integtrity,
and humility.

These are not traits which Tom finds any value in, obviously, so I find
it hard to believe that he remembers them as examples of Sheldon's virtue.

It's all about how much of a break one wishes to cut Tom. Some people
will cut Tom no break at all, and others would find nothing in anything
[censored] could do on RBR that'd be worth condemning.

So, YMMV.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

On Feb 11, 10:07 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Howard I'm off that treadmill.

I've just gotta point out that you are the leading
contributor to this particular off-topic thread.

There are many people here that groove on the
treadmill. Howard, Kurgan, Stevie. Kunich is hardly
the only one that does so in a way that is so
predictable and formulaic as to invite parody.

But no one enjoys the treadmill more than you.

Bob Schwartz

Bob I do still enjoy the discussion. The particular treadmill I was
referring to was in regards to Howard only. Discussion requires give
and take, and I don't feel that's anything close to a two way street
with Howard on politics. It makes me a much richer, and more
knowledgeable person when you folks provide new sources, ideas,
explain when and how you reached them, where you're coming from and
why, etc...
Kurgan, D-y, Steve Bornfeld, Ryan, Kyle, Ben, especially RC, and
others have all done a great job with this, and fairly frequently
caused me to do a rethink and reassessment based on solid give and
take backed by information and sources that are provided for everyone
to see.
I've never seen Howard do that. I put where I'm coming from right out
front, provide the sources that form my thinking so that other people
can review them too.

Bill, I've done that repeatedly over the years. You have a good case of selective
memory. When I have pointed it out recently, you've simply said that you've never
heard of any of the sources before and that, apparently, means that the info is not
valid to you. Sometimes you've said something that is obviously right-leaning and
then said that you were playing the devil's advocate because the right doesn't get
enough representation in here and you want to promote "good talk." But now I don't
think you really were playing devil's advocate - those seem to be your real views,
based on what I've been seeing recently. You say that I don't give any hint of what
my real views are or how I get to them but I'd say that my views on anything we've
talked about are right there to see. Your trouble with it is that you've been trying
to fit me into your preordained pigeonhole.

Quoted message said:

Howard and I live in mutually unrecognizeable worlds. I don't accept
what he says is reality, and vice versa. I know that I'm massively
less hidebound and doctrinaire because I do have good things to say
about folks coming from the left, and have even gone so far as to
defend folks like Hillary and Bill. The first time Howard stands up
for anyone to the right of Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda I'll be
stunned.

Hmm, you're going to start choking right now. I've said in the past that Nixon had
a lot of good domestic policy ideas. Oh: "gone so far as to defend folks like Hillary
and Bill?" How is that going far? Bill Clinton, that radical, governed to the right
of Ford and Nixon.

Quoted message said:

Right now McCain is being blasted by the extremists on the right for
exactly the mirror image Leiberman is being blasted for. The folks
doing the blasting are mirror images too. IMO they are both moderates
whose problem is that they occasionally think for themselves, and vote
their beliefs instead of the extremist party dictate.

The guys who want to start yet another war (in Iran this time) are moderates? The
guys who've supported Bush on everything he's pushed for are moderates? The guys who
advocate torture and domestic spying are moderates? Movement conservatives hate
McCain - they're extremists. Rank and file Democrats hate Liberman - by definition,
they are not "extremists."

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

On Feb 11, 2:23 am, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there's a treadmill, it's of your own making, Bill. You frequently make
outrageous assertions about the politics and positions of people on "the left"
that are based on nothing. There was absolutely nothing in any of the posts
you're referring to that could possibly lead anyone but Tom Kunich or Gunner to
think the posters were Stalinists, Maoists or, much less, advocates of "shooting
everyone who disagreed with them" or [having them] "work a re-education camp."
Perhaps it's just overheated rhetoric. Are you just trying to smear people, or do
you actually believe what you said? If you actually believe it, then you might
consider the concept that your political radar is a bit out of calibration. And
no, that last was not a suggestion that you need to go to a re-education camp.

Ok back on for one. We disagree. In discussing politics your an operative who's
interested in pushing an agenda, not having a discussion. Which I'm fine with, but I
wouldn't waste my time with Rove, or Carville, because I know the script. I know
your script now too. Hit me over the head long enough I figure things out.
White is black, there are no extremists in what I believe, always attack, and don't
ever give any information which could be used against your position. Always twist
the others.
Your good at it, and I quit arguing with the local protesters a long time ago
because all you get is boilerplate. Granted you have more in common with Mike
Farrell, but it's still a waste of my time, unless I become a leftist dittohead.
I can get Stevie's opoinions at Limbaugh, and what you're gonna say
at Rachel Maddow and no deviation allowed.

You really think I'm all about an "agenda?" Seriously, Bill, you need to look at
your own style. You like to portray yourself as the open-minded slightly-to-the-right
guy but your agenda is to blame "the left" for pretty much everything. We're having
this conversation because of that agenda. There was a guy in the Sheldon Brown RIP
thread who insulted Sheldon for his politics, calling them "extremist" and said that
was typical of the "radical left." You let that slide on by with nary a peep, yet you
had a conniption fit when two guys started in with some left-leaning talk. I'd say
that you let the first guy go by because it fit your point of view. But I really want
to know what those other guys said that made you say that they "proudly supported"
Stalin, Mao or "shooting everyone who disagreed with them" or [having them] "work a
re-education camp." That's a reasonable question, no? Now, you say that I dodge and
sidestep answering pointed questions, but you did precisely that in your above-quoted
post. The entire post is an attack that avoids answering a question.

So how about it, Bill. What was it they said that makes you believe they're so
damned evil?

In the same vein, look at the thread where people were talking about the death
penalty. You were saying that politicians turn people loose to rape and kill again
but on't accept responsibility for it. I gave an example of just that happening
(Huckabee and Wayne Dumond) and where you could have said that it was a good example,
you have to bring in Dennis Kucinich as some sort of equivalent. How are they
related, Bill? Huckabee, in an act of pure political calculation, released a guy to
rape and murder (and we can see how the "liberal media" has jumped all over that);
Kucinich did what? The only possible reason you'd bring that up is your agenda. The
agenda is why you can claim that Michael Moore is the equal of Ann Coulter or Rachel
Maddow is the equal of Rush Limbaugh. It's why you can use a reference to Willie
Nelson to post something bashing Hugo Chavez.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

   Hmm, you're going to start choking right now. I've said in the pastthat Nixon had
a lot of good domestic policy ideas. Oh: "gone so far as to defend folks like Hillary
and Bill?" How is that going far? Bill Clinton, that radical, governed to the right
of Ford and Nixon.

Dumbass -

And it was a brilliant piece of political strategy by Clinton. He gave
the opposition all the military $$$ it asked for, he was extremely
active in the passing of NAFTA, signed the welfare reform bill,
allowed a deadlocked Congress to debate endlessly on what to do with
the budget surplus, the result being the first sustained shrinking of
the federal deficit in 50 years.

The right got more and more [censored] as Clinton stole more and more
of their ideas. All they were left with was abortion and guns.

I could see McCain doing the same thing to the left.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Bill C said:

McCain is being blasted by the extremists on the right for
exactly the mirror image Leiberman is being blasted for.

Those two guys may be "moderate" if you put together an aggregate of
all their views on every issue, but on the current wars, and on the
economy they are right-wing (and nutty). McCain should be blasted for
his straight-up baloney about security in Iraq. If he's willing to
lie about stuff like that, why should he be trusted on anything else
anymore.

One other thing Bill - you have a problem in your views of politics in
that if certain left-wing "icons" like Michale Moore or George Soros
are for something, you're against it, and vice versa. That's the very
definition of reactionary. Michael Moore may be a liar, a greedy guy,
whatever. But his core messages on major issues of the day (health
care, the so-called war on terror, corporate welfare) have been shown
to be correct again and again.

Soros is doing great things for democracy and human rights in the
former Eastern Bloc (and even in the US). Hate him all you want, but
you can't deny that.

Howard Kveck said:

   Bill, I've done that repeatedly over the years. You have a good case of selective
memory. When I have pointed it out recently, you've simply said that you've never
heard of any of the sources before and that, apparently, means that the info is not
valid to you. Sometimes you've said something that is obviously right-leaning and
then said that you were playing the devil's advocate because the right doesn't get
enough representation in here and you want to promote "good talk." But nowI don't
think you really were playing devil's advocate - those seem to be your real views,
based on what I've been seeing recently. You say that I don't give any hint of what
my real views are or how I get to them but I'd say that my views on anything we've
talked about are right there to see. Your trouble with it is that you've been trying
to fit me into your preordained pigeonhole.

Howard we're back to worldview and perspective again. You have stated
that ALL mainstream media is corporate and has a right wing bias. I
disagree. Some lean left some right. Almost every source you've
pointed me to has been a leftwing indie source.
My view of moderate independent America was, and is the folks who
really are pretty similar I met living in Manchester NH, Augusta Ga,
Tacoma Wa, not the folks here, or Berkley which seem to be who you
think are in the center.
I've repeatedly asked you to list your basic sources, how you've come
to the comnclusion that the American center is SO far left of where I,
and most others including Hillary think it is. How about any of those
little political positioning quizzes, there are some much more in
depth than the one I posted here, I'm betting you wouldn't be anywhere
near center/ctr. left.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Howard and I live in mutually unrecognizeable worlds. I don't accept
what he says is reality, and vice versa. I know that I'm massively
less hidebound and doctrinaire because I do have good things to say
about folks coming from the left, and have even gone so far as to
defend folks like Hillary and Bill. The first time Howard stands up
for anyone to the right of Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda I'll be
stunned.

Hmm, you're going to start choking right now. I've said in the pastthat Nixon had
a lot of good domestic policy ideas. Oh: "gone so far as to defend folks like Hillary
and Bill?" How is that going far? Bill Clinton, that radical, governed to the right
of Ford and Nixon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Right now McCain is being blasted by the extremists on the right for
exactly the mirror image Leiberman is being blasted for. The folks
doing the blasting are mirror images too.  IMO they are both moderates
whose problem is that they occasionally think for themselves, and vote
their beliefs instead of the extremist party dictate.

The guys who want to start yet another war (in Iran this time) are moderates? The
guys who've supported Bush on everything he's pushed for are moderates? The guys who
advocate torture and domestic spying are moderates? Movement conservativeshate
McCain - they're extremists. Rank and file Democrats hate Liberman - by definition,
they are not "extremists."

--
                              tanx,
                               Howard

Please show me where McCain is advocating for torture?
The same rank and file local folks who re-elected him after all the
National extremists came to Connecticut to get rid of him?
Large protions of what you claim to be radical right has been the
center in most of the places I've lived, and my experience with people
from all over the US. JFK would be a moderadte today, and you'd be
screaming more about him than Leiberman because he governed way to the
right of the Clintons, Nixon , or Ford. I'm with JFK
Bill C

Bill C said:

Howard we're back to worldview and perspective again. You have stated
that ALL mainstream media is corporate and has a right wing bias. I
disagree. Some lean left some right.

On economic issues, what mainsteam media lean left in the US? What
mainstream media tend to take a labor perspective over corporate
perspectives? What mainsteam media question underlying assumptions
about fairness in the US economy?

It's extremely rare. There are a few shows on PBS or NPR that do, but
in commercial TV and print and radio, where is it?

On Feb 12, 7:14 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:27:55 -0800 (PST), Bill C

Quoted message said:

McCain is being blasted by the extremists on the right for
exactly the mirror image Leiberman is being blasted for.

Those two guys may be "moderate" if you put together an aggregate of
all their views on every issue, but on the current wars, and on the
economy they are right-wing (and nutty).  McCain should be blasted for
his straight-up baloney about security in Iraq.  If he's willing to
lie about stuff like that, why should he be trusted on anything else
anymore.

JT
I think you have to take everyone for their overall. Chuck Schumers
position on the second amendment blinded me to a lot of his other
stuff until Steve B pointed me at it. He's terrible on that issue, for
me and thats a fundamental for me, but he's someone I'm never gonna be
crazy about, but can live with and understtand where he's coming from.
I agree with McCain at this point that we can't let Iraq fall totally
apart, and need to give them time to find a way to stabilize it we can
live with. We broke it due to Bush's lies and made the situation
massively worse, now we've got to avoid making the disaster anyworse
IMO, and that seems to be both the others points. McCain seem to be
and admits to be lost on the economy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/18/mccain-economy/
I'm a smaller govt. pro-free market type, with better oversight than
we currently have though, so we're probably going to disagree on how
to run the economy, but my opinion on that isn't worth diddly-squat
because I have little to no knowledge or understanding of the economy
on a National scale, just a basic philosophy.

Quoted message said:

One other thing Bill - you have a problem in your views of politics in
that if certain left-wing "icons" like Michale Moore or George Soros
are for something, you're against it, and vice versa.  That's the very
definition of reactionary.  Michael Moore may be a liar, a greedy guy,
whatever.  But his core messages on major issues of the day (health
care, the so-called war on terror, corporate welfare) have been shown
to be correct again and again.

Soros is doing great things for democracy and human rights in the
former Eastern Bloc (and even in the US).  Hate him all you want, but
you can't deny that.

I've got to do a better job of showing the seperation of my reactions
to the people, from the reaction to the issues. Moore has highlighted
problem issues, so has Coulter they're both scum though.
The issues need to be dealt with but I do NOT agree with all their
solutions, or that the problems are as they have defined them. I think
they've painted a distorted picture of every one of them.
That being said I do think we need to do a lot more things in the
general direction Moore's pointed to, as opposed to the one Coulter is
pointing in.
Same for Al Gore.
As for Soros he's done good for Eastern Europe, and he's increased
debate here, which are great things, but he also supports a lot of
things that aren't good, or even in the character of the the founding
documents of the country. He seems to spend his money towards groups
and positions that would recreate America as a disarmed, controlled,
socialistic, big government state. I know that's a huge generalization
and I'm gonna get picked to death on the details but he's involved in
so many spots that we'd all be dead and gone if we discussed all of
them individually.
Basically, I don't see his philosophy being in line with either the
Constitution, or vision of the people who created the Country. I'm
also much more "strict interpretation" of the Constitution.
There's got to be a balance we can all live with, and is "American".
The only real definition of "American" I can see working is the
framework based on those founding documents and papers.
There are issues that they couldn't forsee that we have to deal with,
and we've done well and badly at different times. I have to lean
towards the smallest government intervention into people lives to
solve those issues which puts me at odds with Soros for the most part.
If we take the hot button issues of the day I'm all over the place
but as you pointed out I tend to react, even kneejerk, to people I see
as being extremist. I realize that I'm a "reactionary" moderate if
there is such a thing, and with the polarization of the Country
there's a lot of reacting to be done.
I believe that Hillary is quite a bit farther left than her record
indicates currently. She did see her husband win twice from closer to
the center, and the Democrats lose twice, especially the second time
to a totall loser by coming from too far left for the majority of the
country.
I believe she has very carefully positioned herself to win the
general election, and expected to get almost a free pass in the
primaries. Obama's thrown an wrench into that. Unfortunately for the
Democrats the last polls I saw show him barely beating McCain, and
that's with the whole Conservative movement boycotting McCain right
now. His voting record places him farthest left in the Senate, he's
endorsed by Teddy, that's another recipe for a close loss IMO because
it wont sell well once the Republicans start pounding out the message
and disputing the "He's a uniter" which he isn't even close to.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
I really apreciate the input JT
Thanks Bill

Bill C said:

I agree with McCain at this point that we can't let Iraq fall totally
apart, and need to give them time to find a way to stabilize it we can
live with

That's easy to say. But what about his comments on the reality in
Iraq, not what he wants. How can you take seriously someone who walks
around with a platoon protecting him and says how much safer the place
may be?

He lies about reality, but because he says he wants what you want, you
agree with him?

Quoted message said:

Moore has highlighted
problem issues, so has Coulter they're both scum though.

This is the baloney attempt at "moderation." Has Coulter ever done any
actual reporting or documenting of issues? Does Moore going around
suggesting people be shot for their views. There may be equivalence
in their vague roles in society, or that people claim they are both
"extremists" but Coulter only shares opinions of her own. She doesn't
back them up with facts of any kind.

On Feb 12, 8:07 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:50:18 -0800 (PST), Bill C

Quoted message said:

Howard we're back to worldview and perspective again. You have stated
that ALL mainstream media is corporate and has a right wing bias. I
disagree. Some lean left some right.

On economic issues, what mainsteam media lean left in the US?  What
mainstream media tend to take a labor perspective over corporate
perspectives? What mainsteam media question underlying assumptions
about fairness in the US economy?

It's extremely rare.  There are a few shows on PBS or NPR that do, but
in commercial TV and print and radio, where is it?

Again that has to be taken as a whole. I'd say the Times syndicate
is fairly progressive on economic policy from an editorial point of
view. I don't think any of them are going to be for a socialist
planned economy model which is usually implied by "fairness". That's
not what America was founded to be. I have seen plenty of support for
graduated taxes, etc...things in line with our model, to make it more
"fair" from a ton of mainstream media.
This is more Greg's territory than mine, but lots of Libertarians
are still screaming that there's really no provisions for anything
approaching our current tax structure in the Constitution.
I'd need to know more about what you mean by fairness? I'd say, as a
basis, that the founding documents guaranteed an opportunity to turn
work into money. Nothing more. Since then it's been a battle to find
the balance. The system was desgined to allow some to succeed, and
some fail, with no regard to "fairness", or feelings.
This is sort of the freedom of speech argument I think. There's no
guarantee of freedom from being offended, but we seem to be creating
one.
Overall, socially I'd say a lot of the major newspaper and TV outlets
have a slight to moderate progressive editorial bias, which matches
the studies of the politics of the people writing the stories and
making the decisions for those outlets.
None of them are radical, by any means, that's why they are
considered "mainstream", and we're back to where I think the
"mainstream" is.
Questioning the basic underpinnings of the US economic system is a
"radical" step.
Bill C

On Feb 12, 8:54 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:42:20 -0800 (PST), Bill C

Quoted message said:

I agree with McCain at this point that we can't let Iraq fall totally
apart, and need to give them time to find a way to stabilize it we can
live with

That's easy to say.  But what about his comments on the reality in
Iraq, not what he wants. How can you take seriously someone who walks
around with a platoon protecting him and says how much safer the place
may be?

He lies about reality, but because he says he wants what you want, you
agree with him?

Quoted message said:

Moore has highlighted
problem issues, so has Coulter they're both scum though.

This is the baloney attempt at "moderation." Has Coulter ever done any
actual reporting or documenting of issues?  Does Moore going around
suggesting people be shot for their views.  There may be equivalence
in their vague roles in society, or that people claim they are both
"extremists" but Coulter only shares opinions of her own.  She doesn't
back them up with facts of any kind.

They both deliberately distort issues for a politcal purpose, Moore
provides more evidence for his points, and only those points, thereby
building a more credible seeming distortion. I forget who said that
the best way to tell a lie is to build it around a kernel of truth,
and that's what he does. Coulter doesn't even bother with that. I
don't think Moore is a complete nutcase, Coulter sure looks like one,
but has the support of a large segment of the population. She's been
losing it with her insane statements lately but there're still a LOT
of people out there who agree with her on the issues. Her research is
studying what the people she "represents" want and catering to it.
I think Moore has made a much larger impact overall, but Coulter's
lunatic fringe is far more dangerous and un-American, but those
Americans ARE out there.
Bill C

Off the treadmill? Hmmm.

Look, a long time ago I used to get into things with
Kunich. Eventually I realized there was no point. My
time has value. So I stopped.

Political threads are like that. No one ever changes
their opinion, 99.9% of the debate is just yammering
back and forth until one side tires or becomes bored.

A lot of people really groove on that. C'est la vie.

I've owned those devices that allow you to ride your
bike without actually going anywhere. I stopped using
them years ago. And I feel the same way about political
discussions here.

Bob Schwartz

On Feb 12, 8:54 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:42:20 -0800 (PST), Bill C

Quoted message said:

I agree with McCain at this point that we can't let Iraq fall totally
apart, and need to give them time to find a way to stabilize it we can
live with

That's easy to say.  But what about his comments on the reality in
Iraq, not what he wants. How can you take seriously someone who walks
around with a platoon protecting him and says how much safer the place
may be?

He lies about reality, but because he says he wants what you want, you
agree with him?

This is something I've been giving a LOT of thought to lately. Every
independent estimate shows the violence down and security better,
right now. His "tour" was a joke though, and a grandstand stunt which
has been typical of his past behavior.
The Administration is playing up "the success of the surge". I'm not
sure I'm buying it. They have now released the document claiming that
Al-qaeda in Iraq is falling apart. I think someone brought up what I'm
about too and they are trying to bolster their position with that.
Looking at this from a military point of view what's happening right
now was, and is predictable in fighting an intelligent enemy, and
there are plenty of those leading the folks we are fighting.
They know there's a huge debate about support for the war, and it's
erroding here. The US dumped a bunch more troops in, but can't/won't
sustain it. There's a VERY good chance that after the election US
troops will be pulled out, or severly cut back/limited, and we HAD
hurt them.
It just makes sense from all those points to pull back, re-arm,
regroup, pick your spots occasionally to keep the credibility, and
wait for the US to back off. The timeline to that happening isn't long
enough for the Iraqi forces to change their capability significantly
so that's not a worry either.
The "surge" may be working, at least temporarily, but there's also a
better chance IMO that the current reduction in violence is just
intelligent decision making by the opposition.
That's something I haven't seen much of other than hardcore military
folks, and some of the new studies saying.

http://tinyurl.com/39wyux

There's some other stuff too that I'll find later if you want.
Bill C

Bill C said:

The "surge" may be working, at least temporarily, but there's also a
better chance IMO that the current reduction in violence is just
intelligent decision making by the opposition.
That's something I haven't seen much of other than hardcore military
folks, and some of the new studies saying.

M. Al Sadr is brainy enough to declare a truce and let someone
else fight Al Queada. Once Al Queada are significantly weakened
he can set his militias to do their thing.

On Feb 12, 9:27 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Off the treadmill? Hmmm.

Look, a long time ago I used to get into things with
Kunich. Eventually I realized there was no point. My
time has value. So I stopped.

Political threads are like that. No one ever changes
their opinion, 99.9% of the debate is just yammering
back and forth until one side tires or becomes bored.

A lot of people really groove on that. C'est la vie.

I've owned those devices that allow you to ride your
bike without actually going anywhere. I stopped using
them years ago. And I feel the same way about political
discussions here.

Bob Schwartz

I hear you, but maybe it's selfish, I feel that I get a lot of good
links, insight, and info from people here to look into. I have
incredible respect for the knowledge of a ton of people here and it's
stuff I normally don't always get. I don't really expect to change
anyone's mind. I just want to know WHY they think what they think, and
how they got there. Unlike Tom I don't consider my positions any more
morally valid than theirs. I'm pretty comfortable with how I got to
the positions I have, and some can easily be classified as "ugly" such
as the death penalty. I'm sure others here feel the same way, or even
more so.
I really respect the discussion, and the exchange of ideas. Even
people who are way out of the mainstream can, and do, bring up good
issues, and make good points.
I guess if I was expecting to "WIN", I'd be upset and wouldn't
bother, but I win every time I get a new insight or view to look at.
My frustration with Howard is where he claims the "Mainstream" is and
what it is, then doesn't provide, or only provides links, and
references to things outside the mainstream to support his position.
Mike Farrell is brilliant at this, and Howard is really good. It does
require them to discard, and discount everything that doesn't agree
with them as part of the "massive right wing conspiracy" I just don't
see Maureen Dowd, CNN, and the NYT as part of a vast right wing
conspiracy and totally biased to the right. It's just a fundamental
disconnect. I know it's out there, but I have trouble handling it from
someone I like, and consider to be rational, reasonable, and
frequently agree with.
The claim is that I'm reactionary, and kneejerk, and I admit I am,
but he's a hundred times worse IMO, and much more wedded to an
ideology and defending ALL of it to the death, but will never admit
it, or if he does I'll be shocked. I just can't believe someone that
rational can, honestly, take such an inflexible defense of a position
and ideology.That's my core problem with him.
People like Gunner don't bother me because he's not real rational.
Howard is as dedicated, and hidebound as Gunner on politics IMO, and I
just can't rationalize that with the rest of him.

Bill C

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Howard Kveck said:

If there's a treadmill, it's of your own making, Bill. You frequently make
outrageous assertions about the politics and positions of people on "the left"
that are based on nothing. There was absolutely nothing in any of the posts
you're referring to that could possibly lead anyone but Tom Kunich or Gunner to
think the posters were Stalinists, Maoists or, much less, advocates of"shooting
everyone who disagreed with them" or [having them] "work a re-education camp."
Perhaps it's just overheated rhetoric. Are you just trying to smear people, or do
you actually believe what you said? If you actually believe it, then you might
consider the concept that your political radar is a bit out of calibration. And
no, that last was not a suggestion that you need to go to a re-education camp.

Quoted message said:

Ok back on for one. We disagree. In discussing politics your an operative who's
interested in pushing an agenda, not having a discussion. Which I'm finewith, but I
wouldn't waste my time with Rove, or Carville, because I know the script.. I know
your script now too. Hit me over the head long enough I figure things out.
 White is black, there are no extremists in what I believe, always attack, and don't
ever give any information which could be used against your position. Always twist
the others.
 Your good at it, and I quit arguing with the local protesters a long time ago
because all you get is boilerplate. Granted you have more in common withMike
Farrell, but it's still a waste of my time, unless I become a leftist dittohead.
 I can get Stevie's opoinions at Limbaugh, and what you're gonna say
at Rachel Maddow and no deviation allowed.

You really think I'm all about an "agenda?" Seriously, Bill, you need to look at
your own style. You like to portray yourself as the open-minded slightly-to-the-right
guy but your agenda is to blame "the left" for pretty much everything. We're having
this conversation because of that agenda. There was a guy in the Sheldon Brown RIP
thread who insulted Sheldon for his politics, calling them "extremist" andsaid that
was typical of the "radical left." You let that slide on by with nary a peep, yet you
had a conniption fit when two guys started in with some left-leaning talk.

D-y jumped in and made the comment I would've. I also thanked D-y
for doing it.

I 'd say

Quoted message said:

that you let the first guy go by because it fit your point of view. But I really want
to know what those other guys said that made you say that they "proudly supported"
Stalin, Mao or "shooting everyone who disagreed with them" or [having them] "work a
re-education camp."  That's a reasonable question, no? Now, you say thatI dodge and
sidestep answering pointed questions, but you did precisely that in your above-quoted
post. The entire post is an attack that avoids answering a question.

So how about it, Bill. What was it they said that makes you believethey're so
damned evil?

Quoted message said:

In the same vein, look at the thread where people were talking

about the death

Quoted message said:

penalty. You were saying that politicians turn people loose to rape and kill again
but on't accept responsibility for it. I gave an example of just that happening
(Huckabee and Wayne Dumond) and where you could have said that it was a good example,
you have to bring in Dennis Kucinich as some sort of equivalent.

I should have made it clearer that I agreed with you and thought
that I had.

How are they

Quoted message said:

related, Bill? Huckabee, in an act of pure political calculation, releaseda guy to
rape and murder (and we can see how the "liberal media" has jumped all over that);
Kucinich did what?

Opposes three stikes for career criminals, excuses "98%" of
criminals, that's his rhetorical number, because they're poor, etc...
The man is totally soft on violent criminals.

The only possible reason you'd bring that up is your agenda. The

Quoted message said:

agenda is why you can claim that Michael Moore is the equal of Ann Coulteror Rachel
Maddow is the equal of Rush Limbaugh. It's why you can use a reference to Willie
Nelson to post something bashing Hugo Chavez.

--
                              tanx,
                               Howard

Whatever happened to
                        Leon Trotsky?
                        He got an icepick
                        That made his ears burn.
                     But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah my agenda is to wlk down the middle and call otu the folks
pulling us way out to both sides. If you don't see a problem with
Chavez behavior, then you have made my point for me. Chavex is an
extremist, Lula is not. That's what you wont do.
Bill C

On Feb 12, 6:27 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Off the treadmill? Hmmm.

Look, a long time ago I used to get into things with
Kunich. Eventually I realized there was no point. My
time has value. So I stopped.

Political threads are like that. No one ever changes
their opinion, 99.9% of the debate is just yammering
back and forth until one side tires or becomes bored.

<snip>

Dumbass -

I've actually seend a few people change their mind.

When it does happen, it is surprising.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.