Radical - Liberal clash (the superball of Politics)

self ^ | February 10, 2005 | Ilija Pavlovich PhD

[Darksheare]

I had the fun of being in the military for awhile where drawn out descriptions are the norm.
For example, you can't say "He has a bullet wound", you have to say "ballistically induced arpeture in subcutaneous tissue" which I guess makes the brass happy but lengthens the time spent in remedying the issue.

So once in a blue moon, I too suffer from drawn out descriptions.
I have to consciously say it in the most direct and simplest form.
And with my suspect typing skills.. I typo and the whole thing ends up being funny.
Good thing I have a sense of humor about it.
;-)

[ILL]

Again I feel that you too have confused JFK with Allan Dulles. It was the height of the cold war and the CIA did things pretty independently, while JFK would have to do cartwheels and headstands in Congress to get any of them approved. Was it not JFK who said the "CIA would be splintered into 1000 pieces"? True, those covert (and anti-communist) actions did take place while he was in office.

[Fedora]

Don't feel bad. If you ever understand anything Darks posts, seek professional help immediately.

And if you do they'll tell you what I was told: they don't have a name for what's wrong with me yet.

[Darksheare]

LOL!
This is true.
I am somewhat of a Rorschach test..

[ILL]

Although this seems directed towards me personally, for arguments' sake I'll go along with you (maybe I shouldn't, but I will).

Naturally that I mold my thought along my own leanings - what's so wrong about that? If you have any other ideas, criticisms, corrections - shoot, spell them out. Do make it into a discourse instead of a veiled attack of my PhD, (envious, or what?) If my premise dosn't hold - go ahead shoot holes into it. But do it directly and openly - I didn't fear to expose my weaker side and my fears - that I wish I never had - but why should I be kidding anybody, least of all - myself.

[Lady Jag]

Of course it's hard to tell how much data you've assimilated to form your opinions and how much your leanings had to do with your conclusions. But, no offense, it appears that you'll want to read more about your historical interests and add some books on the social graces. Trebb is on to that; This forum is different from all the rest and that's where you may have erred. We don't have pi$$ing contests and only Jim Robinson is the pontiff. We do, however have guards who can go hard on newbies if they appear suspicious.

[Lady Jag]

Do you know Illya Shambat

Ilya, one 'L'.

Russians tend to be dramatic and their jokes will slay you, literally. Ilya Sambat is a weird dude into paganism and wicca, and very much still back in the 60's.

[najida]

You DO know him! Yeah, he is very much in the wrong century.

Bless his lil' ole heart.

[Lady Jag]

It is way too complicated to explain in a few succinct statements. Besides, I have clients coming in for the next few hours. I'm sure others will be tackling the issues as well if you hang in there and stay away from the guards.

[Fedora]

On Dulles vs. the JFK administration during the Bay of Pigs operation, you may find interesting if you haven't read them:

Lynch L. Grayston, Decision for Disaster: Betrayal at the Bay of Pigs

H.R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty : Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam

What I get out of these and other sources I've read is that the operation was undermined not so much by JFK himself as by some of the advisors he relied on, especially Dean Rusk, who represented the policies of the Dulles brothers' old opponent Dean Acheson. Acheson, Paul Nitze, Maxwell Taylor, and others aligned with them had been opposing J.F. Dulles' foreign policy during the Eisenhower administration and gained influence with JFK's election. They scapegoated Dulles for their own undermining of the Bay of Pigs in order to promote their own foreign policy agenda, IMO.

[ILL]

Isn't it unusual how you say something and appear to be saying nothing. That's the way I see it. Where is there any direct conflict, criticism, opposing view, incorrectness corrected, misquote, error, pontificating (on that note this most recent post of yours sounds more like the very pontificating you accused me off - poor word order, I know, but what the Hell). There yet has to be a pontiff the my ears will buy. I'm hardly convinced that my own thoughts are correct - how shall I buy so fast into somebody else's?

[Monti Cello]

I think it will be wise to allow some of those a little more pink in color, to get some of their steam off. Let’s allow a few cities to get very Liberal mayors, and a few states (I’d go for Alaska and Hawaii) go get very liberal governors, so that the contrast between “us and them” is not so sharp during the next election and so that we don’t elect some wussy to lead us downhill. Give them the rights to gay marriage, give them some of what they want (in some limited way), let’s not antagonize them too much. In turn let’s keep the top clean, sharp, decisive, moral and strong.

Nothing personal, but to me this sounds ludicrous. America already has severely liberal mayors as a rule, and plenty of liberal governors. Politics is the mechanism for compromise. The left is on the ropes, and now that the right has power it is time to enact change, not toss them a bone. It is time for the left to compromise and get on board with the center, not vice versa. Selling out principled stands (e.g. gay marriage) does not make for 'clean, sharp, decisive, moral and strong'. Quite the opposite. As with our enemies abroad, our domestic political enemies see capitulation as weakness, and then become even more intransigent. The country is moving away from wussy whackjob liberals, not towards them. I will agree the general stance ought to be welcoming the left-center to the right, but not through coopting leftist policies.

[Fedora]

I am somewhat of a Rorschach test.

If my subconscious interprets you as a dark, cloud-like shape that reminds me of a scene from a Bakshi movie, is that a bad sign?

[Congressman Billybob]

You hold a doctorate and you find the writings of Clinton (him) to be impressive? You need to get out more. If you want competent Presidential writings that have both facts and integrity behind them, try Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and the like.

The conflict within our culture is more basic than you surmise. It is between those who understand the genius of America which got us to where we are today, and want to preserve that on one side -- and those who do not understand America, reject its politics and society, and want to destroy that. And the clearest dividing line between the two is respect, or lack of respect, for the US Constitution.

You have to dig some to differentiate the sides, because both sides claim to respect the Constitution. Look for which side believes that judges must obey the Constitution against that which believes that judges should alter the Constitution whenever it gets in the way of their political plans.

BTW, quite a few people here have doctorates. Most of us consider it tacky to state that in front of God and everybody.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Was Howard Dean behind a Daring Art Theft?"

[ILL]

Thanks for posting the links I'll look into them too first chance I get to unglue myself off this board.

[Fedora]

PS: In my previous post They scapegoated Dulles refers to A. Dulles--forgot to note my transition between Dulleses there :-)

[oldleft]

Um...I think you sent this to the wrong person. I just like JFK. I don't have a PhD.

But I play one on TV.

[Darksheare]

MMm... Dark cloud-like shape.. sounds reasonable..
Something out of a Bakshi movie.
Eeeek, Bakshi!
*chuckle*
"You are irrevocably twisted, and a future in training new employees is assured!"

I guess it works.

[ILL]

OOoooooooooooooooooooh. Big Boo-boo on my part. you blew me off the charts. My hat off to you. No pun, no joke. I must re-read what you said it makes killer sense, I am glad you helped me find the weakness of my views - that's how I'll get clearer and stronger views. That is exactly what I was hoping somebody would find. So far you got the heart of it. Thank you.

another topic (on account of my PHD, which seems to tick some people off) I have signed up here only 4 days ago and I put my real life name and my real life degree as I thought that there would be no secrecy of any kind, if anybody were too look deeper, you'd find my home address and my home phone too. OK, maybe I was a little naive, but I was (sorta) embolden by the direct, decisive, strong nature of the views to which I myself, subscribe, so I figured, why not, I am occasionally in the public eye anyhow so what's the use of hiding under "Lee Harvey Oswald"

[Lady Jag]

I'm hardly convinced that my own thoughts are correct - how shall I buy so fast into somebody else's?

That's approximately where the problem lies - Intercourse discourse, not PHD listening. Sweetheart, you have no idea what huge names are here posting anonymously; try to stay calm