Gaze, if you please, at the fly-encrusted putrescence of the following that was left in my comments section for this post ... The title of this blog entry is "It's easy to criticize" because I'm often at my most eloquent when I'm criticizing the drivel that passes for commentary from the right-wing. In fact, it seems us lefties are often at our most eloquent criticizing the revolting garbage of the right-wing (see "pretty shave ape/AKA/Lindsay Stewart's brilliant tirade that preceded his co-blogger status at Canadian Cynic. My original post was about how I was a free-speech absolutist, generally opposed to anti-hate speech laws. I didn't have time to complete what was supposed to be a major post and said that I'd type more the next day. The commentor self-identifies as "Wakefield Tolbert" and I guess that means he isn't "Colin" or "Abu-asshat" (two of my recent victims). Here's the commentary:
Please do NOT write anything tomorrow. I beg of you.
Do you really think we've NEVER seen this kind of "yeah, but" condescension to the ideas of free speech before. How many thousands of bloggers from the Left have said such?
Obviously, people on the left have NEVER NEVER had to deal with limitations to their freedom of speech! Spare us all your self-righteous snivelling please.
Said, that is, to the effect of (and I always am SO pleased that the Stalin Lite Left finds a moral position pulled from the wreckage of their other notions) "yeah--we EVEN have to allow speech we don't care for!"
Well...yeah...else, what's the big deal and then what's the point?
Well that's just it then, isn't it? I don't know what sort of straw-man this idiot is wrestling with. (Aside from the straw-man argument that social democracy is "Stalin-lite"! What a frikken' tool!)
As to the Dark Night of Terror under the Chenian/Rovian White House minions doing wiretappings on the Allah Knows Best crowd, of which the North Canukistanians are more amply supplied than we Yanks, we are in fact sorry that MILLIONS of people got listened to while baking chicken and were enslaved in internment camps for liberals, then shot dead by the truck load and shoved into
shallow pits.
On second thought, spare us any continuation of such hyperbole.
"Continuation"? I didn't even know that I'd started! Losers like Glen Beck like to imagine President Obama ("the socialist") plans internment camps for "conservatives" but I'm unaware of any such fantasies on the left. But check it out Wakefield, nobody knows who all the bush II regime was spying on. You can't say if it was limited to the "Allah knows best crowd" (or the "Pope knows best" or the "Yaweh knows best" or the "Buddha knows best" crowds either) because we don't know the limits of this spying program that almost caused the majority of the bush II Justice Department to resign in protest!!
But note, dear readers, that Wakefield appears to be completely unconcerned about state spying on private citizens. Mr. Champion of Free Speech apparently isn't Mr. Champion of Individual Privacy. Trust me Mr. Tolbert, it isn't due to people like yourself that individuals in the West have any respite from Orwellian nightmares like "Big Brother." (Say, wasn't Orwell a LEFTIST of sorts? A "Stalin-Lite Leftist" in Mr. Tolbert's parlance? What's up with that?) Mr. Rock-Ribbed Conservative Individual-fucking-ist "Wakefield Tolbert" is actually a "Certainly Mr. Government Sir, you may spy on me, my wife, my children. You may listen to my phone conversations, my wife's phone conversations, my childrens' phone conversations. You may look into what subjects I'm researching on the internet. You may read my mail. I think that I can always trust my government. I think that if a bush II Republican government can invade every aspect of my personal space that there will be no ill consequences should a government that I oppose expect the same rights. I think that governments should be able to spy on all their citizens, because only then can we truly be free." What a putz you are Tolbert. What a complete fucking putz.
US and Israeli Imperialism?
Uh-oh! This oughta be good ...
I wish that were so.
Does this moron even know what he's saying? Hey champ! The USA used to be proud to advertise itself as an enemy of imperialism. Just saying, doofus.
For the moment, it seems more likely that for the big nation, it looks more like
a reluctant paper tiger afraid of getting it's nails wet on the world front.
"Reluctant?" Wakefield Tolbert looks at the outrageous thuggery of US foreign policy in the past ten years and talks about "reluctance"? bush II, under the sway of Dick Cheney, concocts ludicrous accusations of Saddam Hussein's WMDs and invades Iraq for its oil, foments ethnic and sectarian conflict that has left over a million dead and four million as refugees, conducts an 8-year long occupation of Afghanistan that has left countless (or "uncounted") dead, and this piece of shit talks about reluctance??? Notice how this piece of shit (that's you Wakefield, just in case you've gotten lost) mindlessly picks up the right-wing meme that Barack Obama is "Bambi" because he wants to pull-back (slightly) from bush II's extreme failure in Iraq to concentrate on Afghanistan and West Pakistan.
We came up with the United For Israel, a nation almost bisected down the middle
and in constant battle for mere survival,
You fucking wingnut shithead. Who is threatening Israel's "survivial"? Hezbollah's 3,000 militiamen? (Unless the 100,000 active-service IDF is really, REALLY pathetic!) Hamas? (If only they could stop Israel from kidnapping their members, and blasting them to bits with their families, they'd have Israel on the ropes by now.) Jordan? Saudia Arabia? Iraq? Iran? Ah yes! Iran threatens Israel's very survival! Iran MIGHT some time in the indefinite future, develop a nuclear weapons program, which could then be grafted to a nuclear missile program, which could (if the entire Iranian leadership loses their minds completely) be used to strike against tiny little Israel who would then launch a massive retaliatory strike that would turn the entire country of Iran into radioactive goo. Um, ... waitaminnit, that doesn't seem very likely does it? Whew! That was close! I'm glad that I'm not as bone-stupid as "Wakefield Tolbert."
which it IS an interesting notion that it's fighting back represent...."imperialism" in some minds.
Wow.
"Wow" indeed. In all fairness, there are people like this young woman (I hesitate to call her a "lefty" because she seems to also have praise for bush II within her ramblings) who would make a somewhat articulate individual like this "Wakefield Tolbert" imagine that "the left" in general is beyond foolish,
but as I've established, other people's failures don't make him infallible. And there's also stuff like this from the rightwing that needs no further explanation.
18 comments:
I did something brilliant? Cool! Thanks for the nod.
oh, more than once. but there was this one rant, can't remember exactly when ...
**snore**
the only exception to the nod-off here, after you confused wiretapping on the Allah Knows Best Crowd overseas's connections stateside and mocking people's names, was this:
Who is threatening Israel's "survivial"?
Now THAT was shitheaded, shithead du jour.
One would think that the support--massive and approaching the trillions--in money and support from the House of Saud and their jihadist schools across the globe that've empowered hundreds of MILLIONS of potential warriors, and not to mention Iran's nuclear aspirations, would have come to even your puzzled, rat-brained attention.
I'm sure that's too much to ask these days.
Do yourself a favor.
Stick to eating chips and masterbating yourself while twittering.
Wakefield,
I have no idea what this means:
"after you confused wiretapping on the Allah Knows Best Crowd overseas's connections stateside"
I already gave you the links to help educate you. It's your responsibility to read them. The bush II regime was spying on everyone. Why do you think the majority of the US Justice Department was prepared to resign enmasse?
As for the rest of your drivel ...
"One would think that the support--massive and approaching the trillions--in money and support from the House of Saud and their jihadist schools across the globe that've empowered hundreds of MILLIONS of potential warriors, and not to mention Iran's nuclear aspirations"
Ha-ha-ha! You're really stupid! Hey, Wakefield! Easy question: "Is Saudi Arabia - a) a close ally of the USA, b) an unimportant non-entity to the USA, or c) a long-established enemy of the USA?"
The answer is "a" Wakefield.
But let's continue.
They've spent "trillions," you write. In "massive support," of ... what exactly, you don't trouble yourself to say. You yammered something about Jihadist schools, which they do fund, but, again, check out the answer "a" to my question above and maybe attempt to reflect upon the significance of that.
"Millions of potential warriors," ... bah. "Potential" warriors, ... what are you trying to accomplish here?
"Iran's nuclear aspirations"? You're such an imbecile. Were Iran to build a few nukes AND be able to put them on missiles that could reach Israel, they still wouldn't launch them in a first-strike. Because they know Israel (with its much greater nuclear arsenal) would obliterate them.
Their nuclear aspirations (if they even exist and your own CIA's NIE disputes they have anything tangible) are purely intended for self-defence. Frightening tales of Iran conquering all of Asia are merely intended for nitwits such as yourself who have only recently emerged from cowering under your beds at the threat of Saddam Hussein's remote-controlled balsa wood planes.
Do the world a favour Wakefield. Stop thinking or writing about politics forever until you die. Because you're just garbage.
Stop the apologia for Islamist thuggery. It's getting old, chico.
And even some Euro-glop politicians are pushing back these days.
It's less about "frightening tales" of this or that than the current reality that Iran's ambitions are defenses against... no one.
It's a play for POWER.
No one said Iran was going to conquer all of Asia, moron.
Whom again, are they defending themselves against?
No one. Iraq was the enemy of Iran in yesteryear. Iran no longer has that excuse. And for "defense" or not, the world is not made safer by even a half-hearted nuke program under the command of a man who thinks he can usher in the age of the 12 Imams.
You don't need "first strike" capability, as Harvard's Richard Pipes showed, regarding similar showdowns decades ago. Real researchers and nuclear historians have pointed out that once you gain nuke power, you merely need the psychological leverage that comes with that in order to succor favor and bowdowns and appeasement to one's demands.
Thus the old USSR was a corrupt machine of nomenclatura apparatchiks and a horrid destroyer of human rights, but got "respect" from the UN to even certain US Senators. Even though our military could generally outperform theirs.
They got favors and bargains they did not deserve. Taking chances with a rougue nation like Iran that is NOT constrained due to ideological considerations is not a good idea. It's like letting a 3-year old play with dynamite based on the unwarranted assumption that she'll never find Mommy's cigarette lighter tucked away in the pantry.
Israel is the only Western outpost in that wretched part of the planet in a general neighborhood of primitives and Palestinian squatters and boom-boom artists and gut splat brigades, and the only nation on earth required to nix her own security concerns uner the illusion this will be a salve to the 7th century barbarity on behalf of Allah.
They should act while the have the chance, and still the size over a drive time of 30 minutes across, etc.
Old Teddy (bless his aquanaut soul) comes to mind. He made sales pitches for the old Soviet Union.
So quit yer lying, kid.
The current administration has all but given up on matters of foreign policy, and Iran has made it clear it's intention to destroy Israel. So we have some statements and lack of actions of concern here, and the twain issues make it doubly dangerous to trust the old codgers at NIE about such matters.
In point of fact, when it comes to accuracy, the Russians and Chinese are more than willing to help Iran out in that regard. They already have. And the world is not made safer in any case by INACCURACY of bonehead missile plans. Rougue nations on missions from Allah and having bad technology don't make us the better off for accidentally hitting Brussels rather than Jerusalem.
This is not conjecture. It is fact.
And the trillion from the sands of Arabia?
Yeah-we helped in that regard too. And no the House of Saud is not our pal. Or shouldn't be. And yes, we need a new energy policy. Though to be sure, Bambi insistence on solar and chicken manure and wind is a little off key for a modern civilization.
The only thing I can say to the whole Iraq "quagmire" (though I notice it's going better than the new liberal "good" war over in Afghanistan, where Bambi can't find out how to quell the bleeding), is that Hussein is NOT going to be put back into bloody-mattress rape-room Vegas-80s Glory.
As to Hamas merely having "only 3000" head smashers?
That's 3000 too many.
They need to be nixed. Or imprisoned. They can doodle their Islamist fantasies on the wall inside their cells, if they like. But the opening of kids heads with rifle butts (a favored Pally tactic) needs to stop.
This is a matter of principle, of course, but when Yale university press is so scared their pissing themselves over the publishing of Muhammad cartoons, and Europeans are caving in to all manner of Islamist pressures, it would seem clear that the Allah Knows Best Crowd has a tad wee bit too much power.
Do US a favor in return:
Move out of your parents' basement already. Get a job, and learn to be an adult and wake up and smell the French roast coffee.
The fact that the Bambi administration is nonplussed about all this and thinks that apology tours and blaming the US for every headnip rip the Islamists pull off, or their nuke aspirations, however allegedly primitive at THIS point in time, mean nothing, is NOT the same thing as saying the rest of aren't taking notes.
The CIA has goofed up quite a bit in the last 20 years. I'm not betting the farm that they are right on this one either. Intel in the Mideast is a hard bargain.
But John Bolton figured out a while back that Iran's smoke and mirrors game is most likely concealing quite a bit. He took those report APART.
Regardless, the very fact you're apologizing for the Age of Mullahs nuke aspirations is evidence that your still in pimple-squeeze mode in your station in life.
Again, punk, there is this little thingy in life called "a matter of principle."
A world bristling with nukes on every corner of Johnny Jihad is not a good idea, EVEN IF Israel can hit first--which is unlikely. Should we allow the Mideast to become like the Wild West then, and make sure the Allah Saloon hellhole in the desert is piled high with nukes in every holster, and hope no one has a good ho-down shootout?
Do you enjoy tempting fate then?
I realize you have little notion of what "matter of principle" means. Perhaps a vague notion at best, like hapless chimpanzee trying to unlike the rather counterintuitive secrets of a locked trunk of bananas that has a latch on it.
But long story short:
Stateside, the FBI is not made happier in the knowledge they are FAR better armed than the Mafia. The Mafia is illegal nontheless. DIG?
They try and disarm (with varying degrees of success) the Mafia and Latino crime gangs nonetheless.
It's called "public safety."
We fight crime lord on the domestic front, and we need to disarm the Sons of Allah and the Ways of Head Hacking on the international front.
1. Palestinian squatters???
Your absolute ignorance of everything important is contained in that statement.
2. Iran isn't going to attack anyone. Kah-peesh? Who are they defending themselves against? Why, that would be Israel and, more importantly, a United States of America full of shit-for-brains fuckwads such as yourself, Richard Pipes, Dick Cheney, ad nauseum.
You assholes destroyed Iranian democracy in the 1950s, and you'll probably try to dismiss that, but Iranians don't give a fuck what self-righteous hypocrites like you think. You pieces of shit have no credibility with the Iranians.
Yes, fuckwad, the USSR's massive nuclear arsenal got it respect from the world. Are you going to assert that a nuclear Iran will be the equivalent to the danger of the former Soviet Union? If so, what pet-shop display window are you typing from?
Iran is trying to avoid the fate of Iraq at the hands of the United States.
On to this:
"And the trillion from the sands of Arabia?
Yeah-we helped in that regard too. And no the House of Saud is not our pal. Or shouldn't be. "
So, you helped in that regard? Meaning? Significance?
And the House of Saud isn't your pal, unless it is, in which case it shouldn't be? Because it is, and that's wrong, but you refuse to recognize reality, or you think the USA should stop "palling around" with the House of Saud, but you don't, because ....?
To be blunt: You're yammering. You're barfing out inane strings of words that make no sense.
Why don't you come back after you've decided for sure whether or not the House of Saud is a "pal" of the USA. If you decide that it isn't, then you've got some explaining to do. If you decide that it is, then you can maybe explain why it might be and what that means.
Until then, everything you type will be yet further incoherence and a waste of everyone's time.
I'll read and respond to your other offering a bit later. I've got some stuff to do.
Yes. The Pally gang are squatters, and while I do feel sorry for the fact that the UN's promises have comprehensivly wrecked their lives, and their violence has not destroyed Israel just yet, they were in fact betrayed by their beloved Arabian fiefdom brethren and got stuck holding the bag in the desert.
Lord Balfour made things clear, the lords of Arabia didn't like his ideas, they lost, and the rest is history of blood and terror on behalf of what COULD have been a Pally state in Jordan had everyone not decided to use the Pally issue as leverage against Israel.
Such is life when you're a gut splat advocate.
7th century warriors with fantasies about a controlling hegemeny for Allah should be destroyed. Not bargained with.
And the USSR's respect--golly on behalf of a statist regime of that magnitude?
Glad to see you approve.
As to Iran and magnitudes of power?
Many analysists consider them to be MORE dangerous for the very reason they're not constrained, but rather encouraged by their fantasy quest. The USSR was evil but pragmatic. Iran has no such restraints once it hits the world scence.
BTW--the Shah was far from perfect, but at least he was not a socialist stooge and stool pidgeon, and actually brought much modernization to Iran and temporary at least nixed the Hajib crowd and got rid of the prophet monkies. He was very secular, and this was direly needed in that region of the planet.
You could have gelled everything down to that advocacy.
And I doubt you have all that much to do.
Most leftists vote for a living and live vicariously via politics.
This is not the same as having to work for a living.
Your local DSS office can get you a job perhaps, rather than running a Stalin Lite window shop of your own.
Richard Pipes is the Harvard Proffesor. Daniel is the blogger and the more proximate target of your childish ire and incomprehension here.
Perhaps your chimpness means Daniel Pipes, his son.
It is far from likely YOU know anything about Richard, goofus.
Again--stop the Apology Tour 09' for the Sons of Allah and the gut-splat brigades.
It's bad enough that Bambi is doing this at the highest levels.
We don't need it from the punk brigades.
Wakefield, you maniac, ... do you suppose you could get around to deciding whether or not Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States?
As I said, this:
"And no the House of Saud is not our pal. Or shouldn't be."
... is entirely incomprehensible.
I'll bet we could solve a lot of your [quite huge] problems if you could get yourself to focus on that subject.
Otherwise, you'll just go on and on, babbling insanely about your pants-pissing fear of Arabs and Muslims.
This handy rehash of what liberals have created in the name of "global governance" came somewhat later, but still.
Evil never sleeps.
If you're really worried about government getting (quite literally) into people's STUFF, I think by now we can establish that GWBush peeping in on FOREIGN-directed calls to the Sons of Allah (as we found the killer Maj. Hassan engaged in, but we failed to act in time in honor of our famed "diversity" honoring the acheivements of the Head Rip Brigade among the rank-n'-file) then no doubt you'll be doubly nonplussed by phony enviro-crap used as the pretext for something actually scary.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/
Wakefield,
How wonderful of you to stop by after all this time!
Do you know why the US government gives Saudi Arabia all sorts of weapons and protection? Is it an ally of the USA or isn't it?
I started reading Mark Steyn's stupid letter but I couldn't be bothered finishing it because I don't have time for his, or your own stupid bullshit.
The climate scientists might be wrong, who knows? But given the fact that most of their critics are either funded by the oil industry or are complete, total, fucking morons like you and Steyn, I'm more willing to put my money on their analysis than the shit you guys spew.
Indeed, and speaking of BS, it seems Phil Jones was forced to step down after ClimateGate (and GlacierGate later put much egg on the faces of the illustrius IPCC) because he's just so gosh-darn honest a swell guy and research.
Of course.
And, as we "all" know, the spending by the oil barons just DWARFS that of the 10,000 government agencies invovled in Climate hucksterism.
Well..not exactly:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SohkUXlTJqI/AAAAAAAABEw/cyCZK3LU1e4/s1600-h/Exxon-01.jpg
As to Saudi Arabia, I thought both Steyn and I made it clear they were bad news and exported this three decades old surge in jihadism.
But as with Steyn's article, myself, and apparently most anything else you run into, you don't see the context of things.
Which is no real surprise, as you don't bother reading anything either. That inludes Steyn's book where you just defaulted to the "Steyn's a racist" precis as told by others who in turn cannot read or get the gist of context.
So why should your analysis of anything be trustworthy?
Steyn was merely pointing out that beyond the faux "settled science" and the outright outrageous manipulation of data, there is a dandy political component that offers to bring more harm than good as it hampers enterprise with carbon demonization, and in turn the irony here is that it is unlikely to be of any effect anyway for the awful price of trillions in carbon taxation and regulation. The estimates go through the roof by most analysis even sympathetic to the cause.
This, at a time it is least affordable as the Obama administration goes about systematically destroying the economy, particularly small business which consitute the majority of new job creating in the US.
Not that a child like yourself cares. But still. When you mind catches up to your aggrevation, who knows that you'll see these larger realities.
Apparently, your penchant for having foreordained opinions on things has somehow served you well.
Including not bothering to read anything. My what powers you must have. David Copperfield, eat your heart out.
Wakefield,
You're really cute. But please explain to me, is the following ...
"As to Saudi Arabia, I thought both Steyn and I made it clear they were bad news and exported this three decades old surge in jihadism.
But as with Steyn's article, myself, and apparently most anything else you run into, you don't see the context of things."
... supposed to answer my very simple question to you as to whether or not Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States?
I've no intention of discussing global warming with you because I trust the scientists and I have no respect for idiots like you or steyn.
What I want you to do (if you want your posts to continue to appear here) is to once and for all tell me whether or not Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States government.
Is Saudi Arabia an ally of the USA?
That's it. YES or NO.
Then, if it's "NO" you don't have to do anything else.
But if it's "YES" you'll have to account for why so many US governments have provided military equipment to this exporter of Jihad.
Thanks Wakefield! I breathlessly await your answer.
If you have no "respect" for guys like Steyn or me, then why ask anything??
You certainly don't have enough respect of either of us to read context into things. That much is obvious. So I appreciate your honesty here.
My suspicion is that you've somehow "connected" Steyn and/or myself to the House of Saud by proxy of the Bush administration, which truly did have many contradictory elements, as Steyn has mentioned in numerous outlets and articles. Or wish to do so.
Real conservatives know that Bush is no more conservative for mouthing some slogans that guys with names like John Smith are Chinese for eating Peking Duck once in a while. Bush is synonymous for "squish"--Tony Blair with a ranch, and hardly epitomatic of neo-conservatism in general.
Blast the neocons to the heart's delight. Aye. But keep in mind that the OLD connection tot the House of Saud that Bush had, as well as most every administration before it for both military and strategic and the obvious oil reasons, while disreputable, was a policy of engagement.
So, as to the word "ally"? Well, that all depends in the arrangement. It always has.
Perhaps you mean "FRIEND."
If that's the case, then NO. The House of Saud is NOT a friend, and works against our interests.
But an "ally" can be anyone at anytime, however distasteful and apparently contradictory, who aids in one of many regards. They do NOT have to be moral, and expecting Simon-Pure morals from any nation on earth is beyond the pale, and absurd.
In any event, "ally" not the same as "friend."
But my guess is that Saudi Arabia does NOT really fit the practical or moral billing of either one.
But that's just me, and Steyn: Guys you have "no respect" for, or think too moronic to ask questions of---except for some odd reason regarding Saudi Arabia.
However, a note on policies both right and left in history:
While it is NOT advocated by conservatives, it should be noted in passing that this arrangement of co-operation was not merely about oil. It was also about what good liberals like to crow and brag about: Diplomacy--the notion of trying to reach out with some common interest in hopes of reaching compromise on certain combustible issues. The Saudis are not paragons of virtue, no. But it was felt (at the time) their assistance was vital to getting things done in the region and putting pressure on more radical groups.
This notion I personally feel is in error. Note that when applied to other areas, liberals praise this tactic. It's called "rapprochement", or engagement, etc. It was done with Red China and the Obama administration is attempting to avoid conflict with Iran and North Korea by cutting deals and offering very mild rebuke (stick) with offers of compromise and aid (carrot) in hopes that the other side will reciprocate.
They may or may not. Time will tell, but I have serious doubts.
So hooray for Thwap for pointing out the obvious.
But the point is that the process of engagement is not abandoned, even as we see few fruits of our labors regarding Iran, N. Korea, and the obvious brutal autocracy of Red China. The same liberal notion of "engagement" was offered to the old USSR, and their human rights record was about on par with Red China's and Iran's.
Worse, in fact, as they killed tens of millions of human beings in the name of socialist progress.
Still, this has NOT to this day dissuaded liberals from getting a little preaching on having "relations" with other nations, even those of ill-repute.
The Saudis ARE bad news, even if Bin Laden hates them as much as we do for their co-operation with the Infidel. But a policy of providing equipment and aid was done for what were apparently pragmatic reasons to ward off other nations in the arena of even worse reputations.
Some consider this bad form, as I do. But the context here was strategy.
Wakey,
I'll put my reply to that in its own separate post!
That's up to you, of course.
But far from likely I'll be able to read anything else anytime soon. Tomorrow is back to work, fun time is over, and it's back to being a milk-cow for Obama to squeeze on behalf of ACORN pests, politicians, and various unions and glop, not to mention handouts to illegals' ER visits after the nightly knifefights and drinking bouts in the inner cities of America.
That's the role of small business in the US these days: High tech slavery. No bailouts for those who actually have to work, brother.
Sorry, fortunes of war and liberalism and all that rot.
Have fun in the schoolyard's sandbox.
Cheerio.
Post a Comment