patrick.net

curious2 says

thomaswong.1986 says

maybe it was the CIA and FBI...

Well, since you mentioned them, at least those organizations were actually involved in killing people.

what you really mean is WU, was responsible but never admitted to it.

and who else was running around the nation bombing state and federal buildings..

week after week after week for several years... who were the members found and pled guilty to having dynamite and nitro.

thomaswong.1986 says

what you really mean is

That is definitely not what I meant, as you should know since it's the opposite of what I wrote.

But you are illustrating something about how Democrats have held power lately. Although as Dan said neither side has a monopoly on ugliness, the critics of the left are disproportionately likely to be nuts. For example, spamming a thread with quotes from Wikipedia, or FortHood's fear of black people taking over his TV, and his insistence that gasoline prices are higher now than during the Bush/Cheney administration. You guys make the left look reasonable by comparison.

curious2 says

That makes the left look reasonable by comparison

with bombings across several years, month after month, week after week.
average citizen unwilling to travel to govt facilities for services for fear of a WU bomb.

yea.. fear and terror is about the only look you get ! But WU certainly came in 2nd
when you look at what Bin Laden did to NYC. Be proud of your side !

Here is a timely Daily Beast piece on the subject.

"How 60's Radicals Ended Up Teaching our Kids"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/10/how-1960s-radicals-ended-up-teaching-your-kids.html

There is just no chance that any "ugly person" on the poltical Right with these kind of criminal records would be allowed within mile of teaching our kids at our major universities.

socal2 says

Here is a timely Daily Beast piece on the subject.

"How 60's Radicals Ended Up Teaching our Kids"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/10/how-1960s-radicals-ended-up-teaching-your-kids.html

There is just no chance that any "ugly person" on the poltical Right with these kind of criminal records would be allowed within mile of teaching our kids at our major universities.

It seems that the Daily Beast has the same moral lacking as you in being able to see the difference between what the Weather Underground did (which I don't condone), and someone who -- in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America -- funnels untold piles of cash and support a group known to be one of the worst human rights violators in the world.

I am sorry, but I don't see the equivalence between 70s radicals who actually did the time that the American justice system demanded of them and someone who took part in some of the most horrible war crimes imaginable. If your panties are in such a bunch over Weather Underground I don't see how you can justify that it is OK for Oliver North to have such a prestigious (and lucrative position) over at Faux News.

Why would someone from the political Right who has wiped the Constitution with his/her ass, and financed acts that make the Weather Underground seem like girl scouts, take a crappy teaching gig? There are much more lucrative and prestigious jobs available to them.

socal2 says

You really think trying to sell arms to Iran to free American hostages held
in Lebanon is the equivalent of blowing up government buildings, targeting
judges and murdering American citizens?

Not just wrong, but totally f'n wrong. The arms dealing was done before, during, and after the hostage scenario, and was also done while Iran was labeled a terrorist supporting government.
You should learn what really freed those hostages, because it wasn't what you think.

Ollie was trying to free American Hostages.

Weather Underground was killing Americans citizens.

One Cable news stations does not = Ivy League Schools.

If you are incapable of appreciating the difference, I can't help you.

socal2 says

Ollie was trying to free American Hostages.

Wrong. He was trying to fund the Contras because congress shut off the money supply for it.
And, ironically those hostages sued Iran and won because of legislation that was passed for that, and the forfeiture of assets was done by Bush 2, who said that terrorists shouldn't be prosecuted but tortured and run through his beloved kangeroo court.
I'll ask my friend who was one of the (severely tortured) hostages if you prefer. Or you can choose to become smarter and research the topic yourself.

upisdown says

Not just wrong, but totally f'n wrong. The arms dealing was done before,
during, and after the hostage scenario, and was also done while Iran was labeled
a terrorist supporting government.
You should learn what really freed those
hostages, because it wasn't what you think.

I also don't mind arming people to fight Marxists in South America.

The Weather Underground were Marxist trying to kill Capitalists in America.

socal2 says

I also don't mind arming people to fight Marxists in South America.

Oh, so butchering, raping, terrorizing, and torturing civilians is A-OK in your book, just as long as the perpetrators share your political views?

Interesting...at least it is nice to know what moral ground you are working from.

socal2 says

The Weather Underground were Marxist trying to kill Capitalists in America.

As, discussed earlier in this thread this is not a proven point, and in-fact -- at least some of the people you are complaining about -- went out of their way to avoid killing anyone capitalist or not.

socal2 says

One Cable news stations does not = Ivy League Schools.

If you are incapable of appreciating the difference, I can't help you.

You must be joking if you think that any one of the Weather Underground members would not immediately quit their ivy league teaching job if they were offered a television show with the pay, exposure and prestige as offered to Oliver North. Yes, you are correct in that they are not at all equivalent.

socal2 says

I also don't mind arming people to fight Marxists in South America.

The Weather Underground were Marxist trying to kill Capitalists in
America.

Yea, another fucked up and beyond insane theory of a right winger. Breaking numerous laws, which could have AND SHOULD HAVE led to the impeachment of both the president and vice president, trials and convictions, just to carry out their assinine ideological based agenda, against their ideological enemy, that in reality wasn't.
You McCarthy types wouldn't know a commie or marxist if you ever saw or met one, because anybody not like you is supposedly one of those.

leo707 says

Oh, so butchering, raping, terrorizing, and torturing civilians is A-OK in your
book, just as long as the perpetrators share your political views?

I said I don't mind arming people to fight back against Communists. I never said anything about rape, torture etc. You can't always control the folks you arm when fighting against a greater enemy (which Communism certainly was back in the 1980's). Just ask Obama about all the folks he armed in Libya who are now killing and torturing people including our ambassador. I trust you are keen to get to the bottom of Bengazi - right? Wonder what those CIA guys were doing just a few blocks away?

socal2 says

I said I don't mind arming people to fight back against Communists. I never
said anything about rape, torture etc. You can't always control the folks you
arm when fighting against a greater enemy (which Communism certainly was back in
the 1980's). Just ask Obama about all the folks he armed in Libya who are now
killing and torturing people including our ambassador. I trust you are keen to
get to the bottom of Bengazi - right? Wonder what those CIA guys were doing just
a few blocks away?

Your theory is lacking one major part.........proof. and yet you'll push that screwed up idea, even after you're proven wrong, time after time.

socal2 says

Just ask Obama about all the folks he armed in Libya who are now killing and torturing people including our ambassador.

Typical right-wing nonsense. You should be talking about Reagan and Thatcher arming Iraq to fight Iran, and then watch that come back to bite us in the ass with Iraq invading Kuwait. Oops.

upisdown says

just to carry out their assinine ideological based agenda, against their
ideological enemy, that in reality wasn't.

Up really is down with you! Great moniker dude.

Yep - Communism wasn't our ideological enemy!

Just ask all the Poles and Eastern Europeans who erected statues of Reagan and Thatcher thanking them for helping bring down the iron curtain.

But what did they know? They only lived it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/21/anti-communist-polish-leader-lech-walesa-unveils-reagan-statue-in-warsaw/

socal2 says

Yep - Communism wasn't our ideological enemy!

So in your world, Nicoraugua was communist, and not a democratically elected government, and that's why you justify the overthrow of that government.
You rewriting history somehow makes you right?

upisdown says

So in your world, Nicoraugua was communist, and not a democratically elected
government, and that's why you justify the overthrow of that government.
You
rewriting history somehow makes you right?

Yup.

History has more than proven that Commies/Marxists = bad. Maybe you are still deluded to think that Communism wasn't one of the greatest political/economic evils in the modern world in terms of mountains of dead people?

Besides, the Soviets were certainly doing the same as us trying to overthrow liberal regimes around the planet. Communism was gaining alot of ground in Africa, Asia, Middle East and South/Central America at the time......and most certainly not all through the ballot box.

But just like our college faculties, many of the Democrats in Congress (particularly in the 70's and 80's) were unthinking useful idiots doiing everything in their power to keep South America mired in the failed Marxist/Communist ideology.

Hell - talk about ugly commies. We had freaking Ted Kennedy writing letters to the KGB trying to get help to defeat Reagan in 1984.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

socal2 says

History has more than proven that Commies/Marxists = bad. Maybe you are still
deluded to think that Communism wasn't one of the greatest political/economic
evils in the modern world in terms of mountains of dead people?

While that may be true to some extent, funding the Contras to overthrow the democratically and legally elected government does NOT make that government, or any people in it, communist.
Calling them communist because you disliked them or they were ideologically your opposite, also does NOT make them communist. And doing anything to support that overthrow, which included dealing drugs and supplying terrorists with weapons, and doing anything while congress specifically passed numerous Boland amendments to prohibit any support, was illegal.

socal2 says

Hell - talk about ugly commies. We had freaking Ted Kennedy writing letters
to the KGB trying to get help to defeat Reagan in 2004.

I'm sure that you also have equal contempt for Nixon and Bush sr because of their kissing the feet of the Chinese government.
And coincidentally(and ironically) Nixon derailed the peace talks with N. Vietnam for an election ploy, just as Bush did for reagen in regards to the Iran hostages to secure the election for Reagan over Carter.

socal2 says

I never said anything about rape, torture etc.

No need to, it was well known what type of people Ollie North was funneling support to. Hell, the CIA even advised them on how to justify killing of civilians, and attacking medical clinics. Hint: the CIA even suggested that they may want to hire criminals to do some of the dirty work. Hmmm...I wonder where they got the money to hire people that were willing to rape, mutilate and murder other humans.

Oh, that's right I almost forgot, you don't care just as long as the victims were people who have political beliefs different from yours...

leo707 says

socal2 says

I also don't mind arming people to fight Marxists in South America.

Oh, so butchering, raping, terrorizing, and torturing civilians is A-OK in your book, just as long as the perpetrators share your political views?

And, upisdown is correct the Sandinistas were not commies.

leo707 says

socal2 says

I never said anything about rape, torture etc.

No need to, it was well known what type of people Ollie North was funneling support to.

And we know full well the type of people our current government and Obama is funneling support to in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan.........

Good grief. Love your selective faux outrage. We funneled money to the Soviets during WWII having a good idea what type of person Stalin was. Greater good and all that.

curious2 says

As long as Republicans insist on believing impossible things, like the queen in
Alice in Wonderland, and compete to show their loyalty to those beliefs,
Democrats can get away with practically anything.

Talk about believing in "impossible things". There can be no bigger fairy tale than those "cultists" who still think California pension liabilities are payable or that American Federal entitlements can work with our demographics if we just keep increasing taxes.

But you are totally right that Democrats can get away with anything when the Democrats and the lap-dog media run on super "important things" like gay marriage, contraception, guns.....

So kindly spare me your lame "cultist" meme thank you very much.

upisdown says

So in your world, Nicoraugua was communist, and not a democratically elected government, and that's why you justify the overthrow of that government.

You rewriting history somehow makes you right?

and some have forgotten it.

Sandinista's created a junta and abolished all opposition. The same members of the junta left the government and joined the opposition, called the Contras

Luis Alfonso Robelo Callejas (born October 11, 1939), a Nicaraguan businessman, was the founder of the Nicaraguan Democratic Movement (MDN).[1] He was one of the "moderates" on the five-members Junta of National Reconstruction that the Sandinistas claimed would rule Nicaragua following the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza Debayle. However, Robelo found that the real power lay with the FSLN National Directorate.

After resigning from the Junta on April 22, 1981, Robelo went into exile in 1982. He brought his MDN into Edén Pastora's rebel Democratic Revolutionary Alliance. Later, he split with Pastora, and joined the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO) with Arturo Cruz, and Adolfo Calero of the Nicaraguan Democratic Force. After UNO's collapse, he joined the directorate of the new Contra umbrella group, the Nicaraguan Resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Robelo

Violeta Chamorro's rise to power began with the assassination of her husband when she took over as editor La Prensa. The paper was traditionally anti-Somoza, and initially backed the Sandinistas. As a result, she was invited to join the Sandinista First Coalition Junta, however she resigned in 1980 when she claimed to have felt slighted and manipulated by the junta, and shocked by their socialist agenda. She then turned to the opposition: the Contras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violeta_Barrios_de_Chamorro

curious2 says

Cutting taxes on the highest income recipients will somehow magically balance the budget, if the cult members all agree to believe that. Everything bad is always the fault of the other side, through mysterious mechanisms that are revealed only to our side. Cultists gain status within the cult by proving their loyalty to the cult's strangest beliefs.

Yet you have no economic theory to point to except the now extinct socialist policies which has failed many times over.

Yes, its been proven tax cuts allow for demand for capital goods by business which in turn hired greater amounts of employees. And given Reagans tax cut, business ordered greater amounts of computer hardware/software/services. In Silicon Valley, this was also part of the economic growth from 1980 to 2000. Jobs increased, incomes grew and wealth was created.. and we had increases to tax revenues as we also saw tax revenues increase post 2001.

Your kind of policies failed... they produced nothing

thomaswong.1986 says

you have no economic theory to point to except the now extinct socialist policies which has failed many times over... Your kind of policies failed... they produced nothing

I hesitate even to reply to this comment, because it's so absurd. The false choice between tax cuts for the 1% and "socialism" is a distraction. It's similar to your earlier attempt at substitution.

The tax rates of the Clinton era produced a balanced budget and sustained economic growth. W's tax shift and massive spending increases on both the military and medical industrial complexes produced deficits and recession followed.

You keep harking back to Reagan, but when he saw his tax cuts weren't producing the results that Arthur Laffer had predicted, Reagan raised taxes. Also, he left a legacy of deficits and debt, so his Republican successor Bush the elder had to raise taxes again. Then Clinton raised them again. Eventually, the budget balanced and the economy prospered.

upisdown says

I'm sure that you also have equal contempt for Nixon and Bush sr because of their kissing the feet of the Chinese government.

And coincidentally(and ironically) Nixon derailed the peace talks with N. Vietnam for an election ploy, just as Bush did for reagen in regards to the Iran hostages to secure the election for Reagan over Carter.

You mean how incompetent both Johnson, Humphrey and Carter were.. and later Mondale... how much of a failed policies compared to the outcome of Reagans work with Soviets.

Your still breathing air boy... your ass wasnt fried by Nuclear war... Thank Reagan for that.

curious2 says

The tax rates of the Clinton era produced a balanced budget

a "projection of a balanced budget" before the fiscal year starts is not a balanced budget...
when the outcome 12 months later is a deficit.

How many times do corporations make a budget that is profitable or breakeven only to show a loss at year end ?

curious2 says

Reagan raised taxes.

no, he reduced the number of tax rates, closed loopholes.
some had taxes lowered some saw increases.

and what did the democrats want ... what was their plan ... list them !

In the late 1990s, America had a budget surplus, and in fact we were paying down debt. Since W's tax shift, we have borrowed more than ever before.

As for Reagan raising taxes, you can read all about it, including his own speech announcing it. Even Republicans do not deny the increase, which was passed by a Republican Senate; the official mythology concerns only his motive, but your variation goes even further, denying undeniable facts.

curious2 says

In the late 1990s, America had a budget surplus, and in fact we were paying down debt. Since W, we have borrowed more than ever before.

Pre-2000...
so called surplus from capital gains due to highly inflated tech stock market, expanding
job market base and higher incomes....well that didnt last long did it .. even before Bush came into office...

when there is a job recession and capital losses from financial investment (2000 to 2003),

where do you get the so called revenue to pay down the debt ?

Projections were too optimistic back in the late 90s...

today, we all know it was unrealistic ...

The Stock Bubble Created the Budget Surplus: Not Bill Clinton's Tax and Spending Policies

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-stock-bubble-created-the-budget-surplus-not-bill-clintons-tax-and-spending-policies

In short, the hero of the budget surplus story was the stock bubble, not President Clinton's tax cuts and budget restraint. This is important not only in dishing out praise for the surplus, it is also essential to a proper understanding of the economy.

Bubbles are not sustainable, by definition. The stock bubble began to burst in 2000. By the summer of 2002 stocks had fallen to roughly half of their peak values destroying $10 trillion in wealth. This gave us a recession which, although officially short and mild, led to the longest period without net job creation since the Great Depression (until the current downturn).

thomaswong.1986 says

Projections were too optimistic back in the late 90s...

At last, an actual fact. As Alan Greenspan wrote in The Age of Turbulence, the optimistic projections were "a rather large error." But W's tax shift and spending increases account for basically the entire W deficits.

You can look at the numbers here. Even 2000, the year the stock bubble burst and many taxpayers had capital loss deductions instead of paying gains tax, showed a surplus over $200 billion.

curious2 says

But W's tax shift and spending increases account for basically the entire W deficits.

war aint cheap...

curious2 says

You can look at the numbers here.

per link... it was unsustainable.. you would still have to be cheering for bubbles to create capital gains for the debt to be paid off.

"The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

thomaswong.1986 says

per link... it was unsustainable.. you would still have to be cheering for bubbles to create capital gains for the debt to be paid off.

No, there you veer off into unreality. The chart is right there, we can both see it clearly shows a surplus in both 2000 (the year the bubble burst) and 2001 (the year we had the worst national security failure in American history, and a recession). The W administration cut taxes in 2001, and used 9/11 as an excuse to commence war spending all over the world, including Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. Those decisions produced deficits, which were exacerbated by further tax shifts (you can't call them cuts because they merely added to the debt) and spending increases, e.g. Medicare D.

curious2 says

The W administration cut taxes in 2001, and used 9/11 as an excuse to commence war spending all over the world, including Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/debunking-8-anti-war-myths-about-the-conflict-in-iraq/

Why are we going to invade Iraq? Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,“(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan — although they’re not our last target.”

another....

“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.” — Russian President Vladimir Putin as quoted by CNN on June 18, 2004

another....

6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism. It’s amazing to me that today in 2005, people are still trotting out that oft-disproven quip. Christopher Hitchens was also apparently surprised when Ron Reagan, Jr. made a similar assertion recently and you may find his response to be most enlightening:

“CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

RR: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? … At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?…

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world.

The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?”

curious2 says

No, there you veer off into unreality. The chart is right there, we can both see it clearly shows a surplus in both 2000

The stock market gains were not sustainable.. PE were way way off. This could not continue years down the road all to pay down the debt. That was the forcast Clinton
made... god knows he talked about endlessly about the Tech boom and wealth when
he came to SV more than several times.

thomaswong.1986 says

You mean how incompetent both Johnson, Humphrey and Carter were.. and later
Mondale... how much of a failed policies compared to the outcome of Reagans work
with Soviets.

You're too dense to realize that plummeting oil prices hurt the USSR more than anything, because that was their only practical export. They let the security veil for all other countries go because of the expense of it.

thomaswong.1986 says

Your still breathing air boy... your ass wasnt fried by Nuclear war... Thank
Reagan for that.

No, thank OPEC for that oil price plummet, Reagan was never that smart, and you're not either. Nuclear war equaled mutal destruction.

thomaswong.1986 says

Cultists gain status within the cult by proving their loyalty to the cult's
strangest beliefs.

thomaswong.1986 says

Yes, its been proven tax cuts allow for demand for capital goods by business
which in turn hired greater amounts of employees. And given Reagans tax cut,
business ordered greater amounts of computer hardware/software/services. In
Silicon Valley, this was also part of the economic growth from 1980 to 2000.
Jobs increased, incomes grew and wealth was created.. and we had increases to
tax revenues as we also saw tax revenues increase post 2001.

Spot on with the cultist analogy, as the above example of rewriting history by another blind Reagan worshipper.

upisdown says

Spot on with the cultist analogy, as the above example of rewriting history by another blind Reagan worshipper.

how do you explain the growth in SV and spending by many industries for tech products

the same was true with Bostons' Route 128...

it sure isnt because we listened to the lefty Marxist UC Berkeley professors...

lower taxes created demand for capital equipment purchases..