Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Wrong again Duncy

I will deal with the intelligent dissent B after I deal with the anti Semitic , Wahabi apologist Communo Daffy Duck.

McCarty can not be a witch hunt as unlike witches Commie traitors were and are real. Their perfidity and complicity in the crimes against American and a range of others are fact.

Myth Number 1 The Rosenburgs were innocent. The far left knowingly spun this tale for thirty years.

Myth number 2 The Us Communist party was independent and no espionage took place there. Read the Venona cables they were subsidised by Moscow and did extensive espionage.

Myth Number 3 Alger Hiss was innocent. No read the Vennona papers.

Myth NUmber 4 Members of the Peace movement in the Vietnam era were domesticaly guided. No John Kerry, Hayden and others met with Communist intelligence officers durring a war.

Thus it is entirely relevant that Cindy Sheehan is protesting with Known Communists in Code Pink, Answer and United for Peace and Justice. Once again Liberals do not make any effort to distance themselves or denounce Communists. Liberals have failed to clean house.

Yet there is a world of difference between patriotic dissent like B and sometimes Justins and the insane Communist lines espoused by the Duck and others. The failure of patriotic liberals to push out the Commie has hurt their cause immeasurably.

46 comments:

B said...

Just like your party loses all crediblity by aligning itself with the religious fundamentalist nut jobs.

Jason_Pappas said...

The religious right is annoying, b, but they don’t compare to communism.

Note that the Republican Party has kicked out David Duke. You don’t see David Duke sitting in the guest of honor box like Michael Moore did at the Democratic Convention.

The left has continued to hold communists up as heroes even after the facts are in. Their so-called anti-anti-communism is just an indirect way of helping communism. You really have to get rid of the far left hate-America gang just as the Republican Party has gotten rid of racists and other cranks.

I know there are some people you'll want to stay engaged with to reform and bring back into the fold. But the Chomskies of the world are too far left.

B said...

Your side embraces the Pat Robertsons, James Dobsons, Jerry Fallwells, and the Terry Randalls of the world. They espew more hatred of America than the left ever has. We actually distance ourselves from our fringe but the your fringe is actually running this administration.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

President Bush is the fringe?

B said...

Hell yes he is the fringe. He is not conservative...large federal government, bases his policies based on the religious right, large corporate give aways, anti-states rights. You show me one true Goldwater conservative who agrees with his policies. There are NONE...at least true conservatives have the balls to say that Bush isn't a true conservative. Bush definately aligns himself with the fringe of your party...the religious right.

Jason_Pappas said...

Actually, B, is right, Bush is not a conservative. But not because he’s the fringe! He’s actually a consensus President.

When Bush ran in 2000, he tried to match Gore’s domestic spending area by area. After 9/11, his nations-building foreign policy was meant to maintain a consensus – remember the slogan: "United We Stand?" Iraq is actually Clinton/Gore’s policy of regime change. Mr. Bush is a well-meaning fellow but he is not ideologically-driven nor does he seek to roll back government ala Reagan.

And as far as religion is concerned, Bush is the first President that has explicitly stated that atheists are good Americans. Bush may have his faults but it has nothing to do with religion. Where do people get that idea?

Mr. Ducky said...

Just a reminder, Beak. You brought up the Verona files and I simply pointed out that none of the names on the Verona memoranda were ever named by McCarthy.

'Ol Tailgunner Joe had no more clue than yourself.

Make sure to check under the bed for Commies tonight. beak and check the closet for ragheads.

Damn, you are dumb. At least Beamish and Warren are sentient. You seem to have evolved to the level of a kitchen appliance and stopped.

B said...

Jason,

Bush is hand in hand with the religious right. He does what they do, talk a good game, but actions show that they are one in the same.

If Bush is a consensus candidate why are his policies so divisive? All of my party and half of your party are against him. Looks like you are some of the last men standing who are very actively pro bush. It's getting harder to find a conservative who likes him. Only you guys and the wing nut religious right.

Jason_Pappas said...

What are you talking about? His domestic spending makes him little different that a Democrat – you noted that yourself. His foreign policy is similar to Bill Clinton’s. Schumer, Hillary, Lieberman – all hold the same foreign policy. Where’s this big “religious right” thing?

He is a consensus politician but being in the middle never works as these politicians hope it will work. It only makes everyone angry at you. Thus, the Democrat’s, after adopting their foreign policy, stabbed Bush in the back. Poor, Dubya, didn’t know what hit him. For years the Dems would say, “why don’t we support democracy movements?” Now that we have they are yelling “hubris” like isolationists. The traditional Republicans, foreign policy “realists,” and American-first pro-defense types, aren’t thrilled about our social-work adventure in Iraq.

Playing middle of the road only makes one road kill.

B said...

Clinton did have a policy of regime change in Iraq, however, he would NEVER risk 2,000 americans lives unless we were at danger. Bush obviously made that decision much eaiser. The democrats promote democracy abroad letting economics decide. Even Bush's father knew that invading Iraq was stupid, why do you think he didn't do it in 91? You cannot force a democracy, at least a legitimate one. If Bush were to be honest about the situation and said iraq was about stability and world politics, that's one thing, but he lied and claimed that we were in grave danger. He lied to all of us.

Bush in NOT a traditional conservative, hence the phrase "NEO" conservative. Large government, large national debt, large tax cuts, large world presence, twitchy trigger finger. Bush's only policy that was even potentially one that the democrats would have agreed with under Bush was the No Child Left Behind, but big shocker, Bush never funded it.

As for denying being in bed with the religious right, are you serious? How do you explain the confidential conversations between Bush and Rove and ALL the religious right organizations, Dobson, Fallwell, Robertson, etc. They are probably more in the know than the democrats are.

Mr. Ducky said...

Stop you're both wrong.

The Dems start talking about social programs and the Repubs start talking about values. It's all just noise. Oh, there a re a few pricipaled politicians out there but those folk are nearly all just dancing with whomever is giving them the largest check.

The recent SCOTUS nominations are aimed at one thing only...to ensure that Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific is never threatened and to ensure that money remains "speech". No more talk about campaign finance reform, please.

That's what's happening and the rest is noise to keep us divided expept for the few remaining trogs like beak who think the commies and wahabists are a serious threat.

beakerkin said...

B

Neocon is the term that Michael Harrington gave ex Communists who broke with the Party. Bush is not and will never be a Neocon by definition.

The term generaly means in far left partlance dirty Jewish republican all of three people.
I know that is not your intent but this is the reality of the term as used by Ducky and 167.

Moving ahead the Republican party was always a big tent party. There are times Religious Conservatives and my type Rudy Republicans clash.
Bush is trying to walk a tightrope but he is way closer to the mainstream then Kerry , Moore and Chomsky.

Mr. Ducky said...

Beaker, thanks for telling me how I use words. You are quite the mind reader.

I notice the Iraelis and Palestinians are back to playing fuck-fuck. I expect that to change in about 60 years.

Jason_Pappas said...

I agree with Beak, Bush is mainstream and close to the center – a consensus politician. B, you are wrong about Clinton’s foreign policy as I explained in my link. This big lie that Clinton wouldn’t have invaded is refuted by my link and the article I discuss. Hell, Gore was more Gung-Ho on Iraq than Bush was in 2000 (Bush was against nation-building, remember?) and Kerry was more Gung-Ho on Iraq in Dec 2001. This flip-flop is just the Democrats stabbing Bush in the back. Dream on, B, dream on.

At the same time, let me say that I disagree with my friends on the right about the Democrats not having the will to fight. They just oppose Bush because he is Bush. If they were in power they’d be tough. Clinton bombed Iraq more than Bush '41. As a matter of fact, the Clintons support Bush’s foreign policy. They, too, are centrists and consensus politicians. And the Dems will vote for Hillary even though she is as much a hawk as Bush. Get real, B, there’s little difference between Clinton and Bush. [Jason ducks as his fellow conservatives throw the book at him.] Bush is a respectable guy but he's not a conservative - he's a centrist.

B, is that all you have on Bush - he talk in private to religious conservatives? Give me a break. So do I and I'm not religious at all. I talk to socialists, too. Hell, I talk to you!

Warren said...

B said:
"You cannot force a democracy, at least a legitimate one.""

Ever hear of a nation called Japan or one called Germany?

B, I'll swear that sometimes you run your mouth with your brain in neutral!

So far we have inneuendo, guilt by association and outright statement of something that is patently false.

And Nostradumbass, someone has to try and decifer what you say.

That's the way you come off, granted that I'm willing to give it a brush off as that 10,000 monkeys chained to a typewrighter thing, but at least Beak credited you with making sense. (well kind of...)

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

What is this "religious right" you speak of? Politically active Christians?

Is Jesse Jackson the religious right?

Or the fringe?

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Is the current Pope the radical right or the fringe?

We could make a game of this, I'm sure.

Jason_Pappas said...

Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr., and Al Sharpton are Reverends, aren't they?
Beamish is right! The Democrats are the ones involved with the religious ... left. I bet John Kerry has “confidential conversations” with them. Oooooo … scary!

beakerkin said...

Jason is too kind

He could easily have mentioned Commie front groups like the World Council of Churches, the Maryknoll Catholics, Rev Coffin and the Berrigan Bros. He could have mentioned Liberation theology etc.

Jason_Pappas said...

Rev Sloan Coffin? I was wondering what happened to him. But you're right. I just gave a partial list. You listed the big organizations and movements.

There is a double standard. Apparently only when some people get religious is it "bad."

B said...

How do you equate religious people and religious fundamentalists? Your a moron.

Jason_Pappas said...

I'll quote you, B: "As for denying being in bed with the religious right, are you serious?"

Oh, I get it. If someone is religious and a Republican they must be a fundamentalist. Now I get you B.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

B,

Is the current Pope Benedict XVI, who as a Cardinal (Ratzinger) ordered communion withheld from politicians who support abortion, a religious person or a religious fundamentalist?

If we're going to play this game, I want to anchor the goalposts firmly.

B said...

Twist, twist, twist, spin, spin, spin. It's what you republicans do best.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Look everybody! Leftist brainlock!

I asked the leftist B to define the difference between his terms "religious people" and "religious fundamentalists" and the answer is "Twist, twist, twist, spin, spin, spin. It's what you republicans do best."

Not to go off topic a bit, but this is exactly an example of Beamish's Hypothesis in action.

"Either leftists are physically incapable of rational thought, or they consciously choose not to engage in such activity in public."

Jason_Pappas said...

You're right, Beamish, we tried to bring up substantial matters, define terms, etc. I even tried to find some areas of agreement! But in the end ... name-calling and evasion.

Mr. Ducky said...

Warren checks in with his usual banality. Gee, ever hear of Germany and Japen, hell no, Warren, you clod.

I suppose you are going to attempt to make the point that the conquering of Germany and Japan was sufficient to bring "democracy". You seem to assume that neither country had democraticic institutions. Please research the Meiji reformation you 'toon.

Did these nations have an independent judiciary, a free press, representative government, rights of contract etc. etc. Yes, we may have disarmed them but we hardly "brought democracy".

The one nation that may work with your argument is the Philippines and even then it's very, very problematic.

If you can demonstrate that Iraq has the institutions for what we would consider a contemporary democracy then please continue. Your cliched ignorance amuses me.

Mr. Ducky said...

Beamish, as much as it pains me to acknowledge a brain dead football fan ... here's a working definition of "fundamentalist". Generally they will display several of these traits:

1. Belief in the literal truth of an ancient text.

2. Rejection of religious freedom.

3. Theocracy

4. Belief that man is fundamentally evil

5. Rejection of science and secular culture.

6. Rejection of secualr law.

What distinguishes the "religious right" from others in this country is a rejection of secular law(at least non biblically informed law) and science.

Like wahabists and other nutlog cults the American "religious right" must either be controlled or destroyed.

B said...

Thanks Ducky,

I was going to say most of those things, but you did a better job than I could.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

We're still setting up the playing field.

So, the "religious right" are those that display your 6 ingredients above?

Could you cite some examples of these people?

Does not mere "religious people" also belief in the literal truth of religious text?

Who rejects religious freedom? When's the last time the "religious right" sued a school district into cancelling Christmas break?

Theocracy? Who's pushing for respecting Shariah decisions and Muslim sensitivities in America while insulting Christians at every turn? What is the purpose of "hate speech" laws?

Why so many laws governing behavior, including "hate speech" laws, if man is actually fundamentally good?

Rejection of science and secular culture? Why was Scott Peterson charged with two murders? Because he didn't have a license to perform abortions?

Rejection of secular law? So all of Jesse Jackson's lobbying efforts have nothing to do with changing laws?

Is the Pope the leader of a "nutlog cult?"

Jason_Pappas said...

What has that got to do with George W. Bush, Ducky & B? Take point #2 – religious freedom. There is no President that has been as broad in his embrace of religious freedom as Bush. I’ve talked about it here. I guess when leftist dogma (another religious-like trait of the fundamentalist left) is confronted with the reality of facts, make a hasty retreat into generalizations and pretend you’re actually dealing with what others say.

Mr. Ducky said...

Jason, get a grip. Bush makes some dipshit speech and that is sufficient to demonstrate his commitment to religious freedom?

Please, he has is crewing working the suckers on everything from "intelligent" design to gay marriage to threats that voting for a pro choice politician means excommunication.

Bush meets John Paul II, tells him that "some of your bishops aren't with me" and you say he isn't pushing for theocratic influence? Don't be a damn Idiot. Now there's a fact, not a generalization...so respond if you like.

You think the recent rejection of harriet Miers because she wasn't a full bore screaming religious crazy thrown to the religious fascists is a demonstration of the current republican parties devotion to "freedom of religion".

Go discuss football with Beamish. He can't seem to understand the purpose of church/state seperation. Maybe you can help him. While your at it help him get over the paranoia he has about muslims.

Jason_Pappas said...

It’s about time, Ducky, you and B gave me some specifics. I agree that “intelligent design” is just creationism disguised … just as multi-culturalism is anti-Americanism in disguise. Both doctrines are tools of propaganda. I’m glad you brought that up. However, multi-culturalism affects every subject and the very nature of our view of history, philosophy, and politics. It’s extremely harmful. “Intelligent design” is silly and won’t have much effect. But strictly speaking it should not be in the curriculum.

Now this is a start of a discussion. Do you want to continue?

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Jason Pappas,

I'm just trying to keep the discussion honest. My position is clear. I sincerely believe that leftists are actually physically incapable of rational thought. I've certainly never found any examples, historical or otherwise, that would dispute my hypothesis.

Have you seen any evidence of rational thought from B or Ducky?

Jason_Pappas said...

I'm trying hard to start a real discussion with the few crumbs of substance between all the insults and boiler-plate dogma. It ain't easy. And you know these guys better than I. Still, I'd like to try before I give up.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Don't give up. Just accept that they're incapable of rational thought, and that saying so is a fact, not an insult.

Then demostrate it to be so. It's easy. I do it all the time.

Jason_Pappas said...

I actually would like to know what goes on in the mind of our leftist neighbors. I’m making some assumptions here but let’s go with it. Just about all the traits Ducky mentions holds true for the left far more than the right.

1. Dogma – the left is big on this one even if they don’t use ancient dogma.
2. Rejection of freedom of belief – need we comment on their record?
3. Theocracy – their God is the state or the dictator who heads it.
4. Man is evil – their variation is to add the word “white” before man.
5. Rejection of science – environmentalist junk-science; rejection of economic law; post-modern rejection of reason and reality, etc.
6. Rejection of secular law – relativism.

I’m afraid that the left does these things in a very big way. Now perhaps this is just the far left but they don’t seem to be able to disassociate themselves with these crazies.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Exactly.

Let me pick up on #3 - Theocracy of the state. Make a formula of the leftist meme from this:

What is the measure of success in Iraq? Certainly not the elections. But they rant a whole helluva lot about Iraq's trained armies not being trained enough to take on...
..."freedom fighters"...
(the way Saddam's old army did)
...in a repressive regime...
(that rarely took losses)
...because they used WMD and artillery...
(that they didn't have)

Let that glop on the plate for a minute before slicing it open to reveal the leftist measure of success in Iraq is a restoration of Saddam Hussein or worse.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

But the above was just an example. Let's stay on the topic of "religious right fringes" being in control of America, for the fascinating ride it will take us through until we go see Saw 2 tonight.

Mr. Ducky said...

Jason, jason, jason. You are going to make this difficult aren't you?

First, your statement about dogma is dogmatic. Your formal logic is embarassing. Really, that one was terrible.

Rejection of secular law- relativism. What the fuck does that mean? I'm beginning to think that you are boxing outside your weight son.

Rejection of economic law. Hmmmm, that's interesting. The whole idea of "economic law" is problematic and probably hard to defend but we'll let it go. Just what law are you referring to? My guess is that you'll go back to Adam Smith and demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of Smith. Most rightards don't have much of a clue about the priciples in"Wealth of Nations" but give it a try. Really, let's see what you got.

Start with trying to deny that Smith was a very strong proponent of progressive taxation and industrial regulation. let's see what you got.

Jason_Pappas said...

Rejection of secular law- relativism. What the fuck does that mean? I'm beginning to think that you are boxing outside your weight son.

OK, Let’s start with that one. Relativism is the doctrine that there are no laws – secular or otherwise. The post-modern academic attacks the very concept of truth itself. Perhaps I was a bit cryptic (although Beamish knew what I meant.) I wrote about it here if you need an extended exposition.

Rejection of economic law. Hmmmm, that's interesting. The whole idea of "economic law" is problematic and probably hard to defend but we'll let it go. Just what law are you referring to? My guess is that you'll go back to Adam Smith and demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of Smith. Most rightards don't have much of a clue about the priciples in"Wealth of Nations" but give it a try. Really, let's see what you got.

OK, let’s review history. We’ll skip the failed socialist experiments based on the idea that one could dispense with private property and individual initiative. That’s too easy. However, even in America & other English-speaking countries, discarding sound economic tradition was considerable. The left would ignore the effect of wage and price controls (they create shortages); central command and control of industry (see Hayek); and the idea that you could spend your way to prosperity. Keynes was blatant about ignoring past theory and creating out of thin air a new theory. The bogus Phillips curve (refuted by the stagflation of the 1970s.) I could go on but that’s just a sample.

Start with trying to deny that Smith was a very strong proponent of progressive taxation and industrial regulation. let's see what you got.

Smith wasn’t the last word on economics – no one takes his words uncritically. But one does build on his sound achievements. Further advances were made by Say, Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc. Economic laws aren’t the quantitative kind you’d find in the physical sciences but they box in the truth about human behavior that the 20th century left just wanted to ignore. There is no getting around the fact that the individual – in his liberty and property – is the foundation of economic wealth when he/she is free to produce and trade. The left objected to that truth on dogmatic ground that it was selfish and didn’t guarantee the results they wanted.

Mr. Ducky said...

Jason, you are actually going to try to take down Keynes? Sheer madness.

I notice that you don't site a single "liberal" economist. There is also no getting around the idea that laissez-faire capitalism presents structural problems that make it impossible for some members of society to freely prosper.

You cannot avoid class conflict in a laissez-faire capitalist system. That's were von Mies (a lightweight of little contemporary importance) falls on his ass.

How did the left reject "that truth". Where did you get the idea that the left rejected private property. Stop talking out of your ass and state facts. Right now all I've got is some libertarian bullshit and I eat libertarians (the sandbox of political and economic thought) for breakfast.

When did the left reject private property?

When did Keynes say you could spend your way to prosperity? He did state that an economy could save too little or too much and get itself into a state of stagnation that required government action but I don't know of any statement that you can spend yourself to prosperity (although Bush is trying this out).

Why see Hayek? Hayek did a fine job of demonstrating that markets are needed to set prices. He did absolutely nothing to demonstrate that unrestrained markets can't fail and require regulation.

Keep it coming Jason...I love feasting on libertarians.

Jason_Pappas said...

You can’t be serious Ducky, Keynes tried to substitute an attempted theory of short-term fluctuations for structural laws of economics without refuting or even addressing economic theory and the achievements of past economists. His excuse is a legendary statement of evasion: “In the long-run we’ll all be dead.” I gave you several examples of economics theories done in the Keynesian vein that have been discarded - ex. Philips Curve. You’ve commented on none of these.

Indeed, his chief policy tool – fiscal policy – is now only a secondary tool (to monetary policy) if it is used at all. Keynes is dead. But your appeal to authority – “you are actually going to try to take down Keynes? Sheer madness” – shows a dogmatic leftist fundamentalist mentality.

Where did you get the idea that the left rejected private property.

Socialists are leftists; the nationalization of industry is a rejection of private property. However, modern socialists know that control is real ownership. Thus, they prefer regulation, directives, and outright property transfer (taxes) to actual de jure ownership. In that regard they are like the fascists of the 1930s who realized that you can take-over more if you leave the appearance of ownership while actually calling the shots by regulations and government controllers.

When did Keynes say you could spend your way to prosperity? He did state that an economy could save too little or too much and get itself into a state of stagnation that required government action but I don't know of any statement that you can spend yourself to prosperity

That’s what Keynes is known for. See the above. By the way, the alternative to saving is spending. Thus, by implication of your very own statement – “save too little” – he is recommending spending. And he did this by recommending that the government do the spending. His implicit assumption (a rejection of Say’s law that production is required to create demand and spending) is that spending comes first.

Now, I admit that I'm recally what I've read decades ago and we can fine tune what I've said. However, you offer little analysis - only "oh, come now" comments and many questions. I assume you don't know very much but just want to wait for me to make a mistake. Then you ignore the bulk of what I have to say and jump on what you think is a mistake. This is getting boring. Say somthing substantial for a change.

Jason_Pappas said...

Let me back off. From your objections above you’re not far left in my book. For example, you bristle at the charge of not respecting private property. You reduce Keynes to some minor fine tuning. And there are other examples. You appear more of a moderate or left-liberal rather than a hard left type. While I still disagree with that position, I respectfully disagree. I don’t mind those disagreements comparatively speaking.

I know I’ve goaded you on with some inflammatory rhetoric (ex. “fundamentalist leftist”) but now I see that that is excessive. And you’ve been caustic, also, but I’m a seasoned Internet warrior and I don’t mind the bluster. While Bush is far from my ideal, I don’t share in the hysterics of the left. But then again, I didn’t share in the hysterics over Clinton and believed my Republican buddies wasted time and valuable resources during Monicagate.

We may be getting into minor details about economics that others don’t find interesting.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

You appear more of a moderate or left-liberal rather than a hard left type. While I still disagree with that position, I respectfully disagree. I don’t mind those disagreements comparatively speaking.

I know I’ve goaded you on with some inflammatory rhetoric (ex. “fundamentalist leftist”) but now I see that that is excessive.


That is the second part of Beamish's Hypothesis. "When a leftist displays some telltale signs of rational thought, he's merely toning down his leftism."

Wait for Ducky to dive back left when his wings get tired of waving in ambiguity.

Because leftists, after all, are incapable of rational thought.

Mr. Ducky said...

Well jason, we may not be too far apart. I still feel that you value maximizing growth above all else and think the market can efficiently take care of the rest.

Well, I think the state must be involved if we are to be true to any number of priciples of justice. The market is a zero sum game and the state must intervene.