The Tyranny of the Left Wing

[Black Dog]

ahh - so typical of the short-sighted lefty. Stay tuned - the war is only about 1/5 toward it's completion point and we're already talking "exit strategy". The true job woouldn't be complete for another 10-15 years.

As Bush once called it the "long war" - not a great name for ADD lefties without vision.

The problem with a democracy with a liberal bias in the media is that the war story gets old after about 2 years. Then we start talking "exit strategy". SO in terms of actualt "policy", you're getting your ADD lefty media wish:

"War while it's a good news story - exit strategy when the ratings drop"

And so we're back to this old shtick. The Underpants Gnome theory of warmaking wherein we don't know where the hell we're going, but by god, we have to stay the course until we get there.

And you wonder why no one listens to you.

[August1991]

Talk about a thread going nowhere. Might as well drop in my one-liners too.

Did Syria have an exit strategy from Lebanon? Does Iran have an exit strategy from Iraq?

Heck, the US exit strategy from South Korea is when the guy with the funny glasses and hair is finally overthrown.

Each time I've crossed the Verrazano Narrows bridge in the past few years and looked at the Manhattan skyline, I've realized that it's willful ignorance to pretend that we don't face a serious problem.

[jdobbin]

Talk about a thread going nowhere. Might as well drop in my one-liners too.

Did Syria have an exit strategy from Lebanon? Does Iran have an exit strategy from Iraq?

Heck, the US exit strategy from South Korea is when the guy with the funny glasses and hair is finally overthrown.

Each time I've crossed the Verrazano Narrows bridge in the past few years and looked at the Manhattan skyline, I've realized that it's willful ignorance to pretend that we don't face a serious problem.

Do you have an exit strategy from this thread?

[Black Dog]

Did Syria have an exit strategy from Lebanon? Does Iran have an exit strategy from Iraq?

This isn't the first time you've trotted this silliness out. I can't believe the problems with it aren't apparent to you. Basically: Syria in Lebanon and Iran in Iraq are close. The U.S. is far away. Syria and Iran can count on local support from co-religionists. The U.S. is a foreign infadel invader. In short, those countries did not require an exit strategy because they aren't going anywhere: they are already "home".

Each time I've crossed the Verrazano Narrows bridge in the past few years and looked at the Manhattan skyline, I've realized that it's willful ignorance to pretend that we don't face a serious problem.

Oh come ON. Why is the assumption always that 9-11 was a harbringer of worse things to come and not a one-off, lucky strike?

[blackascoal]

Wow.

I know if I must be doing something right if this many hillarys start wetting their beds over my topic.

Not to mention the namecalling and temper tantrums are obvious irony that they're proving my point about the kyboshing of others' opinions.

Keep dreaming.

It is such a MINDLESSLY GOOFY topic, particularly in the face of the rejection of right-wing ideology that is CLEARLY evident today .. that I just come for the giggles .. and to read Black Dog spanking right-wing ass.

He doesn't need much help.

[Black Dog]

Here's something that puzzle sme about the new Dolchstosslegende; you know, the one that says Iraq would be peaceful and democratic if it weren't for the terrorist supporting, west-hating western media? The thing I just don't get is: what's in it for the media? Like many other conspiracy theories, this one is long on supposition and short on back story. It's also ironic that the purveyors of this myth are exhibiting the same tendancy towards confirmation bias as the hated EmEssEm.

[GostHacked]

As Bush once called it the "long war" - not a great name for ADD lefties without vision.

Actually, the name was given so the Right Wingers have a goal. Not for the ADD left. OH it's a LONG war. Oh I see. But do we have a clear strateg?

The long war will engulf the whole middle east. That is the plan. The Right need to have more foresight and vision into the whole thing. Or they could simply be lying to all of us.

[Greg]

jdobbin, B. Max,

no one really cares to read your snippy two word postings. Take your banter out of the forums and in the PM or email.

[jdobbin]

jdobbin, B. Max,

no one really cares to read your snippy two word postings. Take your banter out of the forums and in the PM or email.

I've placed him on ignore yesterday rather than look at or reply to his posts anymore. I apologize for my part in the backing and forthing.

[JerrySeinfeld]

you know, the one that says Iraq would be peaceful and democratic if it weren't for the terrorist supporting, west-hating western media?

This is total strawman. No one is saying that. But certainly this is a long term struggle not fit for ADD electorate and media.

The thing I just don't get is: what's in it for the media?

Why does there have to be something it it for them? Most reporters are gut instinct left wingers.

Maybe en masse media members are just plain dumb like hollywood?

Perhaps it has something to do with the dumbing-down effect: Mainstream reporters often have to boil stories down to "whats happening today and how is it affecting your mood TODAY."

Certainly that's not condusive to long-term visionary thinking.

As well, media does well to feed the public appetite for simplistic solutions and things that "feel good". Short term, "feel good" ideas are the left's specialty.

But really, you should be telling me what's in it for the media. Your side is the one manipulating the situation.

[Black Dog]

This is total strawman. No one is saying that. But certainly this is a long term struggle not fit for ADD electorate and media.

Then what are they saying? The point of Jamilgate and so many other criticisms of the media coverage seems to be that the press is overplaying the negative angle in Iraq. But that discounts the very real possibility that the negative gets so much play because there's just so much bad shit happening.

Why does there have to be something it it for them? Most reporters are gut instinct left wingers.

But your "vast left wing conspiracy" would necessarily involve editors, publishers, corporate owners and many more. Seems unlikely.

Maybe en masse media members are just plain dumb like hollywood?

Perhaps it has something to do with the dumbing-down effect: Mainstream reporters often have to boil stories down to "whats happening today and how is it affecting your mood TODAY."

Certainly that's not condusive to long-term visionary thinking.

Which brings me back to messaging: perhaps if your side was able to articulate its ends in something other than banalities about "staying the course" and "long wars" or outright nonsense like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" then people would clue in. But when the PUSA himself is incapable of defining just what the hell they are doing there, how do you think people will react?

Come to think of it: maybe that is the strategy, in which case the problem isn't the delivery so much as it is the imperialist, colonialist overtones. Not to mention, again, the fact that it's based entirely on the not at all self-evident belief that the task of transforming the Middle East via the barrel of a gun is within America's power to acheive.

As well, media does well to feed the public appetite for simplistic solutions and things that "feel good". Short term, "feel good" ideas are the left's specialty.

Ah yes: I remember one very prominent left winger who wrote in April 2003 that: "In a year's time, Iraq will be, at a bare minimum, the least badly-governed state in the Arab World and, at best, pleasant, civilized and thriving."

But really, you should be telling me what's in it for the media. Your side is the one manipulating the situation.

Again: you're basing this on the assumption that Iraq is not as bad as the media is portraying. Which invite sthe obviou srebuttal: "And if it is?"

[JerrySeinfeld]

Then what are they saying? The point of Jamilgate and so many other criticisms of the media coverage seems to be that the press is overplaying the negative angle in Iraq. But that discounts the very real possibility that the negative gets so much play because there's just so much bad shit happening.

I'd say a 1,000-soldiers-per-year is worth creating the toilet that is currently flushing most of the Iran and Syrian military power which would certainly be otherwise employed. Let's keep it going boys!

As for civilian deaths, we'll balance that against the average number per year under Saddam and call it a wash.

But your "vast left wing conspiracy" would necessarily involve editors, publishers, corporate owners and many more. Seems unlikely.

No it wouldn't. All it requires is a herd mentality among reporters. BTW "vast left wing conspiracy" is again a straw man argument: nobody ever called it that.

Which brings me back to messaging: perhaps if your side was able to articulate its ends in something other than banalities about "staying the course" and "long wars" or outright nonsense like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" then people would clue in. But when the PUSA himself is incapable of defining just what the hell they are doing there, how do you think people will react?

Not to mention, again, the fact that it's based entirely on the not at all self-evident belief that the task of transforming the Middle East via the barrel of a gun is within America's power to acheive.

Yes - because negotiation / "diplomacy" have worked soooooo well for decades

A nuclear weapon might be a good solution for Iran.

As well, media does well to feed the public appetite for simplistic solutions and things that "feel good". Short term, "feel good" ideas are the left's specialty.

Again: you're basing this on the assumption that Iraq is not as bad as the media is portraying. Which invite sthe obviou srebuttal: "And if it is?"

This topic isn't ONLY about Iraq. It's about global warming. It's about gay marriage. It's about abortion.

I don't even agree with "conservatives" on all of these issues - such as abortion. However it's completely obvious that the left OWNS the media turf on these issues to the point where many people see the left position as "mainstream".

For example: if someone made a movie about some realities of gay lifestyle which are not very flattering, perhaps painting in a negative light, as opposed to the "fashion shows, home decorating and sensitive" drivel we're fed right now, it CERTANILY wouldn't be viewed as mainstream. To the contrary it would be viewed as hate speech - even though it might be a completely accurate depiction of many gays' lives.

[blackascoal]

Jerry Seifeld,

I'd say a 1,000-soldiers-per-year is worth creating the toilet that is currently flushing most of the Iran and Syrian military power which would certainly be otherwise employed. Let's keep it going boys!

Would any of your family be among the 1,000. Are you in the military fighting for what you so fervently believe other people should be dying for?

No it wouldn't. All it requires is a herd mentality among reporters.

Mainstream media is owned by corporations that are not made up of liberals. If the MSM was owned by thye Left, the American people would have known the attack on Iraq was a fraud long ago, because REAL liberal media has been saying so even before the war began.

A nuclear weapon might be a good solution for Iran.

But Iran shoudn't have a nuclear weapon to protect itself from people who think like you?

However it's completely obvious that the left OWNS the media turf on these issues to the point where many people see the left position as "mainstream".

That's not obvious at all. Again, if the left owned MSM, it would look vastly different and none of it would have championed the Iraq debacle.

[Black Dog]

I'd say a 1,000-soldiers-per-year is worth creating the toilet that is currently flushing most of the Iran and Syrian military power which would certainly be otherwise employed. Let's keep it going boys!

Um...the Iranians and Syrians haven't committed F.A. to Iraq. Maybe some arms, maybe some training. They're certainly not there in force. So to assert that the U.SA. in Iraq is "currently flushing most of the Iran and Syrian military power" is just erroneous. Where do you get your information?

As for civilian deaths, we'll balance that against the average number per year under Saddam and call it a wash.

Er...except that sooner or later, you're going to pass Saddam (more sooner than later at this clip). And, if your genius plan to bring peace and stability to the Middle East by upseting the apple cart entirely, provoking even more conflict, you'll soon leave Saddam's ghost in the dust. Something to be proud of, I'm sure.

No it wouldn't. All it requires is a herd mentality among reporters.

What, you think they control content? Have you ever worked for a newspaper?

BTW "vast left wing conspiracy" is again a straw man argument: nobody ever called it that.

Um....when you start going on about the "MSM" being antiwest, America haters (as you're buddy Steyn is inclined to do) you imply there's some degree of collussion at work.

Yes - because negotiation / "diplomacy" have worked soooooo well for decades

Even if the false stability created by propping up oil despots is not beneficial to long-term western interests, it does not logically follow that your solution would offer better results.

A nuclear weapon might be a good solution for Iran.

And how will slaughtering millions of innocents further your goal of showing the benighted people's of the Middle East the virtues of fereedom and democracy?

For example: if someone made a movie about some realities of gay lifestyle which are not very flattering, perhaps painting in a negative light, as opposed to the "fashion shows, home decorating and sensitive" drivel we're fed right now, it CERTANILY wouldn't be viewed as mainstream. To the contrary it would be viewed as hate speech - even though it might be a completely accurate depiction of many gays' lives.

You've clearly never watched "Queer As Folk."

[PolyNewbie]

There is no definable "left and right". Its a false paradigm. These days you are either for the empire or not.

[blackascoal]

The notion that mainstream media is liberal is utterly ridiculous and any comparison of REAL liberal media to what comes out of MSM clearly proves that.

Case in point .. the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch fraud was exposed by real liberal media which demonstrated and proved that it was nothing more than a Hollywood production complete with a Hollywood director, Jerry Bruckheimer, of "Black Hawk Down." Today, even Jessica Lynch herself confirms that it was nothing more than a fraud, yet MSM has never reported this truth.

Real liberal media reported the fraud of the "toppling of Saddam's statue", which MSM reported as a spontaneous action by grateful Iraqi citizens and an appreciation of the US invasion. Real liberal media posted the wide angle shots of the "demonstration" which clearly show that there were only a handful of hand-picked supporters of Chalabi involved and US tanks and soldiers blocking off the square to keep real Iraqis from disrupting the staged fraud. Those pictures never made it into MSM.

The "liberal press" nonsense comes straight out of the right-wing fraud machine, trumpeted by lunatics like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter, right into the brains of those who depend on them for what passes as thought.

The "tyranny" of the left?

More like the idiocy of the right, which has been exposed for what it is and rejected all over the world.

[Guthrie]

there was a time, back in the 50's and 60's when television news considered itself, without giggling, to be genuine journalism ---

with the constraints of real journalism, fact checking, double checking sources and being confident a story is true before releasing it, there was, in fact, a liberal bias seen -- however, it was the bias towards the truth, which liberals have always been very attached to and the reactionaries have always considered a foe, RE:

"Facts are stupid things." -- Ronald Reagan, 1988

[PolyNewbie]

Left and right is a false paradigm. The political differences lie among those who believe what they see on TV and those of us who do not.

I am a right winger myself, but a real conservative not one of these fake neoliberal conservatives. Harper and Bush are liberals. If you can't see that you shouldn't post and you should go top a library instead.

[JerrySeinfeld]

And how will slaughtering millions of innocents further your goal of showing the benighted people's of the Middle East the virtues of fereedom and democracy?

I dunno - ask Mahmooud Ahmedinejad

[blackascoal]

Left and right is a false paradigm. The political differences lie among those who believe what they see on TV and those of us who do not.

I am a right winger myself, but a real conservative not one of these fake neoliberal conservatives. Harper and Bush are liberals. If you can't see that you shouldn't post and you should go top a library instead.

I disagree.

There is a quite discernable difference between left and right perspectives in America. The left has never supported this war and we are perpetyally anti-war except in defense. The right, on the other hand, has pretty much always supported this war until the the preponderance of evidence and failure changed their minds. I agree that there has been a melding of perspectives within the main political parties, but the political differences among American people remain intact .. which is why Hillary Clinton is booed by the left. She may have, out of political conveinence, decided that war is a good thing, but the left didn't.

The Republicn Party was taken over by neocons .. who have nothing whatsoever to do with "liberalism" .. who led the party to disaster, but with the support and capitulation of mainstream conservatives. You guys should have fought against them long ago. By the same design, the Democratic Party was taken over by the DLC, which discounted the perspectives of liberals and the left .. which led to the rise of the idiot king.

The political differences lie in outcomes, not TV.

[Black Dog]

JS:

And how will slaughtering millions of innocents further your goal of showing the benighted people's of the Middle East the virtues of fereedom and democracy?

I dunno - ask Mahmooud Ahmedinejad

Huh? Bringing freedom and democracy is not one of Ahmebadramajama's policy objectives. It's yours.

Let's try it again. Since the idea is "to have western presence in the region and to protect human rights and freedoms," how will nuking Iran (which would neccesarily involve negating the human rights of thousands if not millions of innocent people in the region) help acheive that goal?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Huh? Bringing freedom and democracy is not one of Ahmebadramajama's policy objectives.

ahhh - doggon it you're right! it's the "slaughtering of millions" part he's more focussed upon

[Black Dog]

ahhh - doggon it you're right! it's the "slaughtering of millions" part he's more focussed upon

Is your inability to answer a question a chronic problem, or deliberate?

Honestly, your almost as bad as PolyNewbie, but at least he/she/it has enough conviction to stand up for his/her/its beliefs.

[JerrySeinfeld]

ahhh - doggon it you're right! it's the "slaughtering of millions" part he's more focussed upon

Is your inability to answer a question a chronic problem, or deliberate?

Honestly, your almost as bad as PolyNewbie, but at least he/she/it has enough conviction to stand up for his/her/its beliefs.

How is taking out a ruthless jew-hating armageddonist with a nuclear program going to help the world?

Good question: you've stumped me.

[Black Dog]

How is taking out a ruthless jew-hating armageddonist with a nuclear program going to help the world?

That wasn't the question. Try arguing in good faith for once.

Here: I'll even ask it again and in bold this time:

Since the idea is "to have western presence in the region and to protect human rights and freedoms," how will nuking Iran (which would neccesarily involve negating the human rights of thousands if not millions of innocent people in the region) help acheive that goal?

Good question: you've stumped me.

It certainly appears I have seeing as how you can't or won't answer it.