One need only review Obama’s voting record as a U.S. Senator to see he advocates for Socialism.

The tragedy is many Americans are also moving towards the same ideology and that is why he is so popular. The Democratic Party has moved further towards the left with each successive year and could rightly change its name to the Socialist Party.

So for many Americans Obama’s call for “change”, which actually means changing from a democratic republic to a socialist state, is heroic rather than something to be feared.

Excellent article.  The more we learn about Obama’s background, the better.  The MSM tries to hide anything that might shed light on this empty suit who fancies himself a great leader. 

As yet, nobody has provided any history of Obama having led anything of note.  He was an “also ran” in the Illinois Senate, where he would have been expected to make real change at least in his home district of Chicago’s south side.  At last check, that area is still plagued by crime and poverty.  I imagine he still has those citizens waiting for his promised changes.

All through elemntary school, I sat next to a kid who, when he grew up, was eventually convicted of being a “hit man” for an organized crime family.  Does that make me a mrudered, too!

Get off it already!  The dead horse is beginning to stink!

If Sullivan tries to cop this thread like he did one a couple of days ago, with insults and threats, name-calling and blustering, I will again leave and stick to friendly and polite discussions.

I think that after the Brokeback Showdown, Obama is dropping like a rock anyway.  He exposed himself as incompetent, unable to come up with concise replies to simple questions, and on the wrong page regarding the beginning of life, the sources of evil, the definition of “rich” and even his own political misscues.  He made up a lie about abortion having increased in the past eight years, and about having reached over to join Republicans in the Senate.

Cliff Kincaid is doing a great service by exposing Obama’s communist leanings.  I wish we could rate the columns here - He gets five stars from me.

It’s hard to argue these days that Obama is the annointed one destined to become our next president. Even the MSM is starting to take stock of their over-coverage of The One. (Washington Post notes that Obama has gotten 3 to 1 front page coverage. The NY TIMES has even shown signs of being lucid recently, instead of the 24/7 propaganda outlet it has been in the past and continues yet.)

It was refreshing to watch the Saddlebrook (?) forum as Obama’s most-used term was “uh,” usually repeatedly as he tried to come up with something plausible. McCain showed no such reticence, but was much more aggressive in giving his views.

Experience does count.

Still, I am a fan of Langston Hughes and others of the Harlem Rennaisance as, where older poetry about urns and other flowery yawns (to me) didn’t move me, Hughes was able to present the black experience in terms that made me feel something, to sympathize with their condition.

Ironically, I was teaching black poetry to largely black classes (many of whom wouldn’t be going to college, so this was their last chance to be exposed to something that was very positive in my life and, hopefully, would be in theirs)...and I was criticized for racism.

Fortunately, the assistant principal was black and appreciated my situation. The text book had ONE black poet, an African, and the vp pointed out to me that many Africans don’t really consider American blacks to be genuine blacks and certainly not Africans.

Gwendolyn Brooks penned a few faves as well:

We real cool
We shoot pool…
We die soon.

I was unaware of the communist connection at the time, but took these poems at face value and was moved. (Pardon if my quote above isn’t exact: I’m quoting from memory.)

On the other hand, you would think that the republicans were bugging ML King’s motel rooms. JFK called King to the White House and told him he had a commie in a high position in his organization: this had to stop.

MLK agreed, but kept the commie on for another year on the (hush, hush, and very) QT, anyway. It was RFK’s Justice Dept that sicced the FBI onto ML King Jr. And, of course, King was a republican.

It would seem that blacks revere King…but aren’t entirely sure why.

Judge Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on the content (if any) of THEIR character.

Better: Just wait and let God do it. Who are we to judge? God can do a much better job of handling these two “reverends.”

Yes, I do see a pattern Helen!  Though I must start out by saying you forgot to put philanderer by FDR - remember his sceretary?

Anyway, I see philanderer by FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton - I see the pattern of Marxism - and then we come to Jimmie - no philanderer, kisses up to all enemies of America, and absolutely dumber than a box of rocks.  So your pattern here IS: pick the philanderers over Jimmie Hahahahahaha

Now if we look at Osamabama - I think I can safely say he is like Jimmie in that I have no reason to believe he is a philanderer (besides I suspect Michelle would castrate him if he even tried), though he is like Jimmie and would kiss up to all of America’s enemies, and obviously even more than Jimmie does - and that takes some doing lol And Obama is the most Marxist/Totalitarian/ and Communistic of all the former Democraps.

So the pattern lol IS (the definition of IS is) that if we get a Demo go for the philanderer and not the one who keeps his pants up Hahahahahahaha

Jack: As a Catholic who practices the religion prior to its takeover in the 1960’s by the Commie/Socialist’s, I want you to know that Brian R. Sullivan’s views are perfectly aligned with the phony church he represents in his posts.

This phony church is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party and that is why as a believer, Sullivan can with a clear conscience, support Obama or any other abortion advocate.

Dear Mr. Slinkiecat (or is it Ms. or Mrs.?), You blindness to you own foilbes continues to astonish me. You state that I have made insults, threats, engaged in name-calling and bluster. First of all, while acknowledging the truth about oneself can be painful, you could try to see yourself as someone with intelligence, good education and knowledge of the real world of international relations, intelligence and warfare views you. To dewscribe you as stupid, ignorant, gullible, biased and paranoid may sound like insults, they actually describe you quite accurately. Secondly, I remain extremely puzzled about what threats I have supposedly made. Please be as complete as possible. Personally, I do see a kind of threat I represent to morons such as yourself: I point out your intellectual vacuity. That, in turn, raises painful notions in your mind, I expect, even if only in your subconscious. At some level, even if you are in deep denial, you must have a sneaking suspicion, that you are detached from reality about the actual events of the past few years and the nature of this ongoing presidential campaign. Worse, you must fear the truth: you are incapable of reason. Your thought processes are shaped by hysteria. That’s quite sad, since what you fear are only fantasies in your tortured imagination. As for name-calling, why don’t you read through your various blogs of the past few weeks. You have constantly. As for my supposed blustering, please give me precise examples. I’m interested in finding out if you know the meaning of the word and, if so, what you consider bluster on my part. I would certainly not want to give anyone the notion that I engage in bluster (“to threaten noisily without the intention or power to make good the threat.”) After all, that’s what the despicable Mr. Hansen does and I surely don’t want to appear to be like him. To a certain extent, this question ties in with my previous one.
By the way, is this the sort of thing you meant that would encourage you to depart from this blog? If so, good riddance you puerile, brainless coward. As King Arthur says in Monte Python and the Holy Grail, “Run away! run away!”

Brian R, you ignorant slut,

>>Dear Mr./Ms voxoreason, You misquote Ms. Brooks…

What part of “(Pardon if my quote above isn’t exact: I’m quoting from memory.)” didn’t you understand?

You are too ignorant to address me, so please refrain from doing so. I don’t suffer fools gladly.

Have a good, if insignificant, day.

Dear Ms. voxoreason, I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings to point out that you misquoted Ms. Brook’s poem. But you decided to misquote, rather than to look up the correct version. Teh actual text is far more powerful than your misremembered version and I wanted to make that available to those who have never read that astounding compression of tragic feeling. Whose fault is that? Furthermore, by expressing your opinions in public, you are subject to anybody’s reply or retort. That’s the way our Constituion works. And I glory in being a free American protected in my right to express myself on any matter to anybody.
(By the way, in what way did I express ignorance? Do tell. As for “slut,” have you any idea what the word means? Apparently not. Again, you display your ignorance. That’s your problem, not mine. But I’ll try to do you a small favor to improve your vocabulary. Slut: “a dirty, slovenly woman; a woman of loose character; a bold or impudent gilr; a female dog.” Try as I can, I can’t see how any of those definitions could possibly apply to me. If you wish to insult me, try not top insult yourself by displaying your ignorance. dictionaries are useful for writers, even of blogs.

Dear Mr. Hansen, I sincerely don’t want to waste the time of FBI agents. They have too many more important tasks than to show up at my door only to find me not at home. Please send me the information I requested about the time of their arrival. I don’t want to think that the threats you made about contacting the Feds about my supposed felonies is nothing but an example of blowhard bluster and deep mental confusion. I already have a very low opinion of your intellect and reasoning ability. But by blogging on the matter, you have exposed your attitudes to many others. Surely you don’t want them to hold you in deep contempt, too. Or, on some deep level because of inner guilt and shame do you want to be humiliated? Have you considered prayer?

“But the 40-page report, advertised and sold to the media as a refutation of Corsi’s “lies,” doesn’t identify Davis as a hard-core communist and it dishonestly edits an article about Davis to eliminate references to his admitted involvement in CPUSA activities and make the black revolutionary writer and “poet” look like a civil rights activist.”

What article about Davis was dishonestly edited?

Dear Mr. Hansen, Among your many delusions and illusions is your notion that you know what is American and un-American, that you are in a position to state who is a traitor and who is a patriot, that you understand the foundations of the American system and the threats thereto, that you undedrstand the law and the system under which security clearnces are granted or revoked. But your words indicate just the opposite.
I will review your latest examples of such ignorance and confusion. Do you think that a Marine colonel has any right, ability or authority to report on me, to enter a notation in a file on me, to influence my security clearances? What ignorance! I’m a civilian now, collecting a disabilty pension. The military has absolutely no jurisdiction over me, certainly not in regard to my exercise of freedom of speech. You seem to think we are living in a police state. (But we aren’t.) And if such a person told you that he did have such power, he was either lying or was trying to get rid of you. Even more to the point, it is highly unlikely that he would have a clearance higher than those I have, know what my clearances are, know why I have them and have any information on what I have used them for. Thus, even if he tried to get involved in such matters, he would never know the results or consequences. And, if he is interested in his own record and career, he would certainly not get involved in such dubious matters. (You think he used the term National Security file? You THINK he did? Didn’t you pay careful attention to what the fellow said?) And, what is a “National Security file.” Don’t you realize the guy was humoring you?
As for reporting me to the FBI, so what? As they tried to make clear to you, there is nothing to report over which they have any jurisdiction. They attempted to be nice to you. But you don’t understand what their use of “could” and “may” means, not do you appreciate what their non-committal response indicates. The FBI agent was obliged to listen to you. He was probably interested into looking into my background for reasons of which you have no idea. That’s understandable, again for reasons unknown to you whic I cannot reveal. Of course,since you did contact the FBI, now they have a file on you. Furthermore, under the Freedom of Information Act, I can get a copy of my FBI file (it goes back to 1964.) Anything in it that involves you will have your name blacked out but it would be obvious who made such statements, from the subject and the dates. It will be interesting to find out what you are recorded as stating in my regard. But you did answer my question. I don’t have to worry about any agent wasting the government’s money by arriving when I’m not home. None will call.
You are so mixed up that you have accused me of felonies for stating the truth as I see it, for being a traitor, that is, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime. You don’t seem to realize that we are not in a formal state of war, hence no American can be accused of treason. And if we were at war now, with al Qaeda or the Taliban, you think that I have given aid or comfort to them? If I had the slightest respect for you, I might be offended. But I hold you in contempt, little worm. Instead, you amuse me in that regard, although I am not at liberty to explain why. As for calling me a felon, that really indicates your hopeless ignorance. One becomes a felon only after conviction by a jury for a serious crime and after the presiding judge affirms the verdict. Even that can be reversed on appeal. Surely you remember one of the pillars of our legal system: “Innocent until proved guilty”? I’m not guilty of anything involving the law. But you are obviously either a fool or someone who doesn’t understand the basic workings of our legal system.
Now in regard to other, lesser matters. Do youunderstand what “vile” means? Apparently not. Why did you put “really” in quotation marks? Was that an attempt at emphasis? If so, then you don’t know how to write proper English. (Please consult a dictionary and a grammer and useage handbook. Your ignorant comments on American military history - the Marblehaed boys had nothing to do with the Marine Corps, whatever nonsense is implanted in your feeble mind - no longer concern me. I am interested in what you can’t inform me about in that regard: where did you pick up such nonsense? As for your use of the term “Senior Service”: that refers only to the Royal Navy, certainly not to your former service.
As for your later comments about my mental health, my intellectual abilities, my computer skills and my toilet training, I can only deduce that you are of mediocre intelligence, poor education attainments and have a feces obsession. I would have ignored those deficiencies save for this: I find it interesting to discover how your mind works. Your mental pathologies help me to understand how someone develops the political orientation you display. Your concern with defecation can best be explained by someone far more knowledgeable about psychiatirc problems than I am. I will note, however, that it has been a long time since I have heard an adult make such comments. They same holds true in regard to your statements about children’s toys and mental institutions. I’m no expert in what such weird attempts at humor mixed with efforts at insult reveal. But you aren’t really a mature, responsible adult, are you? Finally, I have several friends who write novels and short stories. I’m going to pass them your blogs. It may be that you will be immortalized in fiction. But, if so, I don’t think you will like the way you would be portrayed.

Dear Mr. Woods, I never responded to your confused references to Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Jefferson. Now I will. What, exactly, Leviathan has to do with American liberalism, I don’t comprehend.Certainly, the book is of huge importance in the history of political theory and one of the foundations of modern conservative thought. But it is based on two erroneous notions. Hobbes can be excused for not knowing what archaeology, paleontology and anthropology have reveald about prehistoric, pre-civilized man. But his statement about their lives having been nasty, brutish and short is simply incorrect. Those attributes can be assigned to some of our forebears but hardly all, or even most. Research has revealed a richness, complexity, sociability of culture for many of our ancestors. Just the very recent discoveries about life in the pre-desert Sahara region reveal that. More important, as others have pointed out, is a man worse off being at the mercy of ten thousand others or of one man with the power of ten thousand? Is anarchy worse than living under a Stalin or a Hitler? I suppose the answer varies according to our individual ablities to defend ourselves. But it also explains why this country has liberal institutions and why the Alien and Sedition Acts, chattel slavery, the Palmer raids, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in 1942 and McCarthyism are now considered stains on our history.
As for Thomas Jefferson disapproving of contemporary American society, he very will might. But while Jefferson was a great thinker and illustrious president, he was a very flawed human being. Had his vision of a largely agrarian American been fulfilled, likely the Union would have failed beyond redemption in the 1860s and, thereafter, the two American republics would likely have been at the mercy of the European powers. Worse, Jefferson’s wealth and privileges were based on his slaves, that hardly gives him much moral authority. But worst of all, his relations with Sally Hemmings began as statutory rape and continued under compulsion. After all, he never freed her during his lifetime. That seems to indicate she would have used her freedom to leave him. In those regards, he seems to have been less than a hero.
As for your argument that liberalism has degenerated into licentiousness, I think that only indicates your moral blindness. You seem to feel nostalgia for another time. But a time of what: back street abortions, racial discrimination, Jim Crow, anti-Semitism and nati-Catholicism, lower levels of public education and health, sexual hypocrisy, maybe even Prohibition? No thanks! You cannot legislate morality. If you try, your produce such monstrosities as the rise of the Mafia in the illegal liquor trade. Furthermore, licentiousness in the eyes of one person is freedom for another. And whose idea of morality would be imposed? I remember the Eisenhower era quite clearly. I do not want to go back to that time of narrow mindedness and discrimination. I wish all Americans to be free, even free to sin. That, after all, is what free will means, the road one chooses to salvation or damnation. Consider the message of Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange. Separation of legality and morality is one the the pillars of American greatness. In that regard, Jefferson was a giant in his time. Today, however,he would be serving life without parole for child abuse, unlawful imprisonment and God only knows what other offenses to human dignity and human rights in regard to his hundreds of slaves.
You appear to be afraid of the future. You seem to want to stop it or reverse it. You can’t. A new and better era in American history will begin in January. And you will afterwards be ashamed, if you have a free conscince and a mind not clouded by sin, of your paranoid fantasies about Obama.

Brian R. Sullivan, for my edification, are you of the belief that only Roman Catholics are truly Christian and that other denominations are heretics in danger or mortal peril, i.e., eternal death? This serious question is in response to your post #18 to Ms. Elaine.

Bob

Dear Mr. Ms. or Mrs voxoreason, I find it difficult to follow your reasoning. Perhaps you might adopt a new pseudonym like “voxindeserto” or “voxaroundtheclox.” One reason I find your statements confused and confusing is this previous statement by you: “You are too ignorant to address me, so please refrain from doing so. I don’t suffer fools gladly.” But now you ARE asking me to address you. What do you want, what you stated before or what you are asking now? Furthermore, if you don’t suffer fools gladly, how do you abide yourself?
To answer your questions: Like almost anyone else who lived in New York City and was under the age of thirty when SNL began, I certainly remember the Ackroyd/Curtin exchanges. But if you had paid attention to my previous blog to you, you would have noticed that I saved you the trouble of consulting a dictionary. Ackroyd addressed Curtin as he did because he was speaking to a female. “Slut” can’t refer to a male, unless who does so is inventing new meanings for words. Are you familar with the term “slut’s wool”? It refers to the balls of dust that gather under furniture, that bear a certain resemblance to sheeps’ wool. Since housecleaning was long considered woman’s work, the phrase suggested that such dirt indicated that a housekeeper or maid was a slut for letting such accumulate. That is one example out of many indicating not only your ignorance but your mental laziness. You can discover the meaning of words in a dictionary. But you don’t seem to use one.
Other examples: Your misquote of the Brooks’ poem. It is extremely pithy. The poet compressed her meaning into a very few words. Almost every one has multiple meanings. Perhaps her major point is that those who despise education, those who think that it is “cool” to drop out of school in the African-American community run a very high risk of winding up dead at an early age. (The grammar in “We be cool” is obviously that of uneducated African-Americans.) But for some strange and probably revealing reason, you misquoted by stating “We shoot pool.” Do you think Brooks was warning about the dangers of hanging out in pool halls? That’s hilarious! Also, you left out “Now be June.” Brooks was evoking an image of young men dying in the late spring or summer of the year but also in the spring or summer of their lives. In other words, you don’t seem to have understood what she meant, even though a confused memory of her powerful words remained in your mind. This probably indicates you don’t know how to penetrate into the several meanings of great poetry. As further indication of that, you state that you were unaware at the time you (tried) to teach that poem of the “communist connection.” What does the politics of a person have to do with poetic genius? Should we not read Ezra Pound because he was a Fascist? How about Vladimir Mayakovsky or Isaac Babel? Their poetry is off limits because they were Communists? What ignorance to shut your mind off like that. Finally, you stated that you took Brools’ poems at “face value.” To read a great poem and only appreciate it on the most superficial level (“face value”) is truly a sign of base ignorance. Great poems have many layers of meaning. That’s what makes them great and provides one reason literary critics continue to study poems that may be hundreds (eg. Shakespeare, Milton, etc.) or even thousands of years old (Homer, Hesiod, etc.). Such works offer insight and wisdom that can’t ever be fully plumbed. Furthermore, they often make allusions to other great poems or to events at the time they were written. To appreciate that, you need to have a wide knowledge of literature, history, languages and so forth. That’s not to argue that only learned people should read poetry. But it does indicate that you probably have a hard time understanding the full, rich complexity of great literature. In this regard, I’ll leave you with an example. Shakespeare’s Sonnet 73 begins: “That time of year thou mayst in me behold // When yellow leaves or none or few, do hang // Upon those boughs which shake against the cold // Bare ruins where late the sweet birds sang.” To what recent historical event does the poet refer? What does he mean by “sweet birds”? (Hint: he does not mean little feathered animals.) You can begin to educate yourself in these regards by reading some of the classic works of poetic criticism and by immersing yourself in the great poems. But that takes hard work and great intellectual vigor. You don’t seem to have done that. Thus, your ignorance has left your life poorer and shallower than it has to have been. There’s still time, however.
As far as some other examples of your ignorance: Use of “Saddlebrook” when you meant “Saddleback.” That’s especially noteworthy because you didn’t have to go any further than this blog collection to discover the right word. You used “sympathize” instead of “empathize.” You misused “ironically.”
But your comments on Africans and African-Americans really underline your ignorance. Obviously, you have never been to West Africa. The relationship between people living there and African-American visitors is far, far more complicated than what that fellow told you. For example, consider the history of Liberia and Sierra Leone. (If you don’t know about that, you could try reading some histories of those countries.) In addition, the situation is even more complex because of a third group: Afro-Caribbean people. Their cultural attitudes, the ties they enjoy with both W. Africa and N. America, make the question of who considers whom “really black” or authentically African far more nuanced and internally contradictory than you appear to imagine. If you had spent sometime in one of the large W. African cities, like Dakar, Abijan or Lagos - as I have - you might understand this to some extent. In those giant cities you encounter these three streams of the African diaspora (including many rural people from those countries who have flooded into those places in search of work) and can observe their interaction and range of attitudes toward each other.I realize that was probably and remains financially impossible for you. But you don’t even seem to have done any serious reading on the matter, instead relying on someone else’s error-filled oversimplifactions. Wha tdoes that indicate? In a word, ignorance.
Yu wrote: “It would seem blacks revere King…but aren’t entirely sure why.” To put it in the vernacular: “Are you nuts?” Have you discussed this idea with enough African-Americans to gain a sense of what that ethnic group’s attitudes about King are? It seems not. Instead, you made a blatantly ignorant and condescending comment that stuns me.
You end by stating “Who are we to judge?” That’s really funny in a dark manner. All your blogs are judgemental from start to finish. Phyisicn, heal thyself.
I could offer you much more explanation of why you seem so poorly educated and living in a mental fog. But this must suffice.

Brian R: I find it difficult to follow your
reasoning.

Then don’t. Waste somebody else’s time with your nonsense. I would say you probably have better things to do, but you obviously don’t.

I gotta go see a man about a dog.

To Jack H Hansen from post on 8/18/08 @ 2:33.  You do not have to give your address (or any other information) to anyone in this forum.  Only people who have been charged with a “criminal offense” have a right to confront their accusers.  This right is found in the 6th Amendment.

So, don’t let anyone try to bully you into giving them something that they are not entitled to have.

Thanks Shirlyn - and I do know that, and would never give out my address.  My post was to warn others about Brian R Sullivan.  This vile man, as you can see from every single time he gets online, has single handedly cowed, intimidated and threathened many commenters on the AIM site.  And last night he was of course at it again, as he was the night before. 

I have tried to do and say anything I could to get this sleazebag to go away like a bad smell and have not been successful - and of course brought vile langauge from Sullivan upon myself for my efforts.  My post was in the hopes that others, and especially new posters, would not have to go through what some have when Sullivan rants.

He was very successful last night, as it was down to Mark, the son of Frank Davis, myself and Sullivan - every single other commenter left the site after being berated by Sullivan.  And I finally left when it bacame apparent that this man is either absolutely insane or a plant by Obama, and just will not willingly leave where he is not wanted.

Perhaps he is an Obama plant, especially when we see that he has been so successful in driving off posters - he was able to close this site down last night.  And as Cliff Kincaid has stated, the Obamaites are working overtime trying to stop the free discourse of information that is negative to Obama.  It takes just one vile person like Sullivan at each Conservative site and they obviously reek havoc to free discussion.

I have been in contact with Cliff Kincaid, and he passed it on to the Chairman of AIM, in the hopes we can get this sleaze to take his toys and go away.  Free Speech is one thing, but this man goes way way beyond what is reasonable.  I know if I went on the hate site, Daily KOS, and just respectfully discussion my thoughts, I would be driven away, banned, my Conservative ideas would be labelled hate speech, and the vulgarity from those at the site would probably make me think Sullivan is a choir boy.  So it is only reasonable that Sullivan needs to go from this site as he does not understand the word respectful and almost all he utters is vile bile towards all that disagree with him - and everybody on this site is disagreeable to him.

If AIM wants people to comment on articles on this site, then they will recognize that this man is running most people off and is not conducive to free discussion.  I have no problem with anti opinions to Cliff’s articles, and that is what free discussion is all about, but this man believes he is on a mission to shut up all those he opposes and he certainly does it in the most vile manner.

I know I probably speak for many when I say that I would like to be able to state my opinion and comment on the AIM articles and not be spoken to in return for that like I am some ignorant idiot.  This man has an advanced edition of the Thesaurus - as I do believe he knows every single word for ignorant and idiot in the English language - even the slang words that are not necessarily in any dictionary or Thesaurus.  The recipients of his bile and vulgarities almost all have to feel intimidated, cowed, and he is not above actually threatening - as if I was Mr Woods, a poster on this site, I would have felt threatened after his comments of a few days ago - as I do believe he wanted to confront Mr Woods in person and I sure felt he wanted to do bodily harm.

If AIM wants to keep comments as a function of their site, they need to address this, as I am tired of Sullivan, as I am sure many others are, and it would be far easier to just unsubscribe than have to put up with this.  ON ANY monitored site, this man would have been banned days ago and his rants would be deleted - and HE knows this.  This being an unmonitored site, he knows he is pushing it far beyond what is reasonable.

Jack, I found Mark’s stuff tiresome, but learned to ignore it. Sullivan’s stuff can get tiresome also; you might try ignoring it.

Jack: I’m new here but you know it isn’t unusual for nut cases to be on every blog.

How about if we all ignore Sullivan and any other loonies and just keep to the subject ourselves so that those who may be inclined to leave may be inclined to stay.

It doesn’t take long to weed out the loons. Usually one or two posts and then you skip over anything they have posted.

Please don’t let him upset you. That is his goal and you don’t want him to win.

Mr. Sullivan, I asked you a straight forward honest question as to whether or not YOU believed that only Catholics were Christians, not what the 2nd Vatican Council or the Pope taught. By the way, I sincerely doubt you’ve even read the complete 2nd Vatican Council documents, if at any of it. But are you now claiming to be a Canon Law and 2nd Vatican Council expert? If so, I wonder, have you ever read the New Testament completely including Paul’s statements about salvation and what was the proof of a Christian?

As my father, uncle, and aunt were Catholics, I was quite aware of the current Catholic denomination’s teaching about other Christian denominations and even though I’m a Protestant I greatly respect the late Pope John Paul II and the current Pope. To me they’re strong Christian who are to be regarded as Archbishops. By the way, my aunt is a nun. So much for my anti-catholic animus, but I do understand your need to lie about others views. But what of your animus to those who even dare ask you to clarify a simple position? I’d ask you to apologize but I doubt that word is in the vocabulary or nature.

Like most political and religious demagogues you needed to resort to an an hominem attack. You’ve done that with all who’ve disagreed with you, resorting to name calling and veiled threats and have refused to answer simple questions. Furthermore, your responses remind me of dialectics. You might have a PhD, although I found no direct references to you on the internet, and you might have been a Marine Major, but in light of your pugnacious animus you’re neither an intellect nor a gentleman. However, you’re quite aliterate.

Hey you all - instead of yelling at EACH OTHER -how about a laugh instead.  Read this and react to MEXICO - and other countries who expect us to do their job:  Enjoy!!

MEXICO IS MAD AT ARIZONA

—- Mexico is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico!

The worm has turned. Wait till Arizona ships a bunch more back
home…the yelling will be deafening.

The Mexican State of Sonora is angry at the Influx of Mexicans into Mexico.  Can you believe this? Can you believe the nerve of these people?

Nine state legislators from the Mexican state of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona’s new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico.

It seems many Mexican illegals are now returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked! A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say the State of Arizona’s new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora, Arizona’s southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns—cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs, and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers in Arizona return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

The law, which took effect January 1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don’t have valid legal documents to work in the United States.  Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

The Mexican officials are ticked off because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing an extensive burden on their state government.

Mexican State Representative Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales, has some nerve. She wants to tell the state of Arizona how the law will affect Mexican families on both sides of the border. “How can they pass a law like this?” asked Mexican Rep. Amparano- Gamez. “There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,” she said in Spanish. “Mexico is not prepared for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans who worked in Arizona to send home money, now are jobless and returning to hometowns in Sonora.” Then she added,  “We, Sonora and Arizona, are one family, socially, and economically.”

Wrong. The United States is a sovereign nation and its states and its citizens are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico’s citizens.  It’s time for the Mexican government to stop parasitically feeding off of the United States and start taking care of its own citizens. All our states should pass a law like Arizona.

Maybe that’s the answer since Congress will not do anything.

Dear Ms. O, Did you inspire “The Story of O”? If you did, could you describe your experiences in more detail? If you find me tedious, it might be because you don’t have the slightest idea what I write about. In case it hasn’t occured to you, I feel an obligation to point out that you and others are incapable of understanding and judging the issues confronting us at the moment. I find your blogs reminiscent of old John Birch Society publications. You know, don’t you, where the Birchites accused Pres. Eisenhower of being a Communist agent? Now it’s the same old conspiracy nonsense put in new bottles. True, that helps the ignorant to explain things going on that they can’t understand. But it certainly doesn’t provide any solutions, does it? This free speech business can be annoying, can’t it. How about circulating a petition to abolish the First Amendment?

Hi again Jack.  When you first warned about Mr. Sullivan I didn’t even read ANY of his posts because I felt it was a waste of my time so I don’t know anything of what he has been saying - and I really don’t care what he has to say.  I don’t pay attention to people like him.  Let him trash me all he wants, I will never see it anyway.  Then he will be a big man, huh?  And, I am not intimidated by people like him either.  I don’t let them bother me in the slightest little bit.

I am more than happy to debate people on the issues but people who just name-call and try to upset others don’t want to talk about the issues, they just distract. 

If everyone would quit reading his posts and stop responding to him, he will eventually go away.  If he doesn’t that’s okay as well.  He obviously likes the attention and I refuse to give it to him.

Personally, when I see someone who posts a negative or rude comment I just go on to the next one and read the ones that have something worth while to say.  There are so many good ones, why even look at the others?

Take care.

Getting back to the article about Obama’s Communist influences—-

what troubles me is that I see both the Democratic and Republican party leaders heading into the same direction although in different ways. That direction is towards tyranny with a loss of our Constitutional rights and at the same time, confiscating more of our wealth to redistribute as government bureaucrats see fit.

Obviously, this doesn’t bother Obama supporters in the least who seem to embrace socialism as a “change” for the better.

Concerning Mr. Sullivan, I agree with you, Julie O.  Please, Mr. Sullivan, remove yourself from this comment forum and find somewhere else to bore others to tears with your windy blatherings.
We said PLEASE!

To Julie O.,  You hit “nuthin’ but net!”

Julie O, I hope Dr. Sullivan doesn’t think you’re discussing him lest he find you and give you a knuckle sandwich. After all, he’s one of the most erudite and tolerant persons on this forum.

Dear Mr. Benitez, Why you have adopted the paranoia of Mr. Hansen escapes me. When a person anonymously tells me I lack honor because of expressing my opinions, I find that cowardly and despicable. I would like to know that person’s address and identity to bring a civil law suit against them. I also want to see what sort of person they are, in the flesh, and discover if they have the guts to tell me to my face what they previously wrote to me under cover. I have made that clear repeatedly. I do so again now. Why you think that insinuates a desire or intention to inflict bodily harm, I do not know. As far as I can figure it out, you are placing yourself in what you think is my position and then thinking how YOU would react. That, in an ironic way, proves my point.
And, in yur case, I repeat what I have already written: I have answered every question you have posed to me to the best of my ability. But you have refused to answer my questions. Of what are you afraid?

Mr Sullivan,

You obviously have a “god complex,” constantly surmising things (personality profiles, level of intelligence; all of which are clearly inferior to your own, at least in your own mind) that are simply beyond your ken.

You obviously have nothing else to do with your time as you compulsively, it would seem, feed your seeming obsession with long, boring, and interminable “contributions” to this blog.

It becomes increasingly obvious that you seek some sort of self-justification by means of your obnoxious spews which don’t rise to the level of actual writing, stopping short at psycho-babble tirades.

Any disinterested party would pick up on this from reading any of the AIM columns to which you respond.

I can only imagine your miserable existence as the dogshiet on the shoe of life.

I will eagerly await your response…so that I can consciously and deliberately avoid reading it or anything else you have to “contribute” to this blog.

Listen closely and you may hear the sound of one hand clapping.

Have a nice day.

Mr. Sullivan, Believe me, I will always respect your freedom of speech.  The point that I find myself in agreement with some other people here is that you insist on using this comment forum as your personal blog.  Since there are no rules (none that I have seen specifically) about limiting the length of comments here, you indeed have the right to write whatever you please.  My request is simply that the discourse would be more engaging and enlightening for all readers if we would commit to, as a matter of civility and courtesy, avoiding any name calling and personal attacks, and most importantly whenever necessary, stay with the subject of the article.  And by the way, I think only a masochist would read all of your postings in their entirety.  Jeesh!

Major Sullivan, I believe there’re a number of posters who believe you might react with violence in a face to face discussion, including myself. You’ve shown your belligerency and have stated your disrespect for those who disagree with you. So please don’t insinuate I would use violence. It only shows your have no idea what being an officer and a gentleman means. As for your questions, go ahead and ask them.

Dear Mr. Benitez, I would find it extremely tedious to repeat the questions I have asked you but to which you have not responded. Those questions are located in the blogs I addressed to you. Surely you must remember SOME of them. But I’ll repeast a simple one. In what dictionary can oen find the word “aliterate”?

Post #7
Hi Ms. Sabin—
Thankyou for sharing, and I must apologize.  I seems I didn’t make myself clear in trying to convey my frustration with situations like the subject of this article.  I thought my closing paragraph was to the point; namely that Obama, and the rest of the democrats and their liberal cohorts, are afraid to show their true selves:

“If his socialist policies , and socialism in general, are good things, then why hide? “

I’m with you, Ms. Helen!!  “Community organizer” is Obama’s way of saying COMMUNIST.

Here I begin.

1. AIM logic, using only the truth.

a. MCCAIN SPENT FIVE YEARS IN COMMUNIST NORTH VIETNAM WHILE THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN TROOP WERE DYING IN THE SOUTH! WORSE, WHEN HE HAD THE CHANCE TO LEAVE, HE REFUSED! HE MUST HAVE LIKED IT THERE.

b. William Kristol, supposed conservative editor of the Weekly Standard and op-ed columnist for the New York Times was raised and mentored by a Trotskyite - his very own father, Irving Kristol! The elder Kristol was a long-time member of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party. Obviously, under such malignant influence, William Kristol must now be only pretending to be a neocon. Surely, he is some kind of Trot mole. Beware of anything he says or writes!

I assure you everything I have written about the Kristols is true. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
More to come.

Brian R. Sullivan,

You asked why didn’t I answer your questions. I believe I did but here are some answers if you’ll accept them.

Do you think that Catholic priests are more guilty of pedophilia than ministers, rabbis or imams?

How is one more guilty (guiltier) than another of the same crime. If you mean do I think the incidence of pedophilia is more prevalent among priests than among ministers and rabbis, the answer is no. But that has no relevance to the question I asked. I can’t change the question because as far as I know no one has ever accused Rev. Wright of pedophilia.

So why haven’t you educated yourself in these matters? (This was in regard to my question as to whether or not YOU believed non-Catholic Christians were saved.)

I did answer this. I said I asked YOU what YOU believed, not what the Vatican Council or the Pope believed. I was aware of what the Pope taught but I wanted to know your opinion. By the way, my wife was fired from teaching at a Catholic school because a parent and a nun believed that as a non-Catholic she wasn’t a Christian.

Furthermore, you seem oblivious to what I have written about my acceptance of Church teaching. How more clear can I get?

Rather than launch into long dissertations about what the Church taught on the matter, you could directly answer the question of what YOU personally believed. But I think you were just trying once again to impress people with your knowledge. It may be extensive, and God knows you’ve certainly bragged about it a lot, but a succinct answer would have sufficed.

What gives you the idea that I consider myself an expert on Church history?

Your braggadocio on a number of posts and your statement “I do know, however, that I am far more knowledgeable than most other people, including you.”

What possibly led you to the conclusion that I claim to have read every document released by Vatican II?

The question was rhetorical in light of your braggadocio although I suspect you are fairly well read in that regard, far more so than I am.

How about trying to act like an adult?

Is that a question or just another one of your grammatical mistakes? In any event, I hardly think your conduct is very adult like with your attempts at intimidation of about every poster who dares disagree with you, you berating of them, and you admitted contempt for those you consider beneath you.

More to the point, if you are a Christian you feel comfortable about telling me I commit he sin of lying? How could you possibly know that? That comes pretty close to blasphemy in my book, that is a man claiming to know what only God can.

So claiming that you lied is blasphemy? A person can know when another person lies when that person puts forth as fact what isn’t true. You have made assertions about me that weren’t true and when confronted have continued to do so. Specifically you have asserted that I’m anti-catholic. That is a lie on your part. By the way, there was another misspelling in your statement.

Do you understand what “demogogue” means?

A demagogue is one who treats or manipulates a political or other issue in the manner to obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc. Addressing questions by verbosity and going off into irrelevant tangents are demagoguery, something that you do more of the than not on this forum.

As for not answering simple, direct questions, which?

Let’s start with my question about the situation I mentioned about the Rev. Wright and Obama, then with the question about your belief about other Christians. You didn’t answer my question as to what your PhD was in and wouldn’t give an internet address that listed your accomplishments although you’ve certainly bragged to quite a few poster about them.

You sure don’t know much about economics or economic history, do you?

It would seem I know more than you do. The basis of modern liberalism is the welfare state and redistributive taxation, not as you claimed classical liberalism based on the word liberty.  You implied it yourself when you said “the greater good” in your approval of the SCOTUS Kelo Decision which you first identified as Kay SCOTUS, a shorthand version of each according to his ability and to each according to his need. Now I didn’t say liberalism or socialism was the same as communism although you tried to imply that I did. Furthermore, I wasn’t discussing economics or economic history but the effect of the Kelo Decision on the Fifth Amendment and the right of private property ownership. It was you who once again decided to obfuscate the issue by going off on a tangent.

Since so many are ignoramuses, I so call them that. Furthermore, I have, I must admit, another purpose. To those who display their ignorance, I point that out, including you. You find that offensive?

Yes I do as I find calling people swine and ass as well. Perhaps to you that seems perfectly gentlemanly.  Oh, I forgot you abhor being gentlemanly.

well, educate yourself. If you can’t, then why not give up expressing so many stupidities?

Besides the additional grammatical mistake you make, perhaps I don’t believe I’ve expressed an stupidities, but then in your hubris I doubt you’d understand that.

You find that a threat?

As I said, in light of your demonstrated contempt for others I do find it a threat. But I live in Omaha, Nebraska.

Finally, what does the word “aliterate” mean?

Do we need to go over that again? It’s a person who can read but who chooses not to gain information from what the read. As I said, I use it in the sense William Buckley used it.

Finally, how DARE you state that I only “claim” to be a Catholic? What do you know about the state of my soul? What do you know about how I practise my religion?”

You claimed you were a Catholic making a big deal of it numerous times. That made it a legitimate issue. As to what do I know about the state of your soul? Well the Bible says you can tell about a tree from its fruits. Can you honestly say you have no respect for those who disagree with your views, that you can call them names like swine or ass, berate and bully them, make veiled threats, and say that’s good Christian conduct? I hardly thin so and I’m sure a lot of other posters would agree with me. How many do you think would agree with you or with your statement that you abhor being a gentleman, not to mention your utter misunderstanding of the term and your claim that it’s unconstitutional to say that you’re not a gentleman as I claimed?  However, that’s not to say you’re not saved. If you’ve accepted Jesus as your Savior, and from your somewhat convoluted answers I believe you have, then I believe you’re saved. That’s the most important thing that can be said between us.

Did you mean “illiteracy” and “illiterate”?

No, I meant aliteracy and aliterate. But you stated “That’s really funny, even though you didn’t intend it that way. That you so display your gnorance is astounding.”

But go to such sites as thefreedictionary.com, havenworks.com, wordsmith.org, merriam-webster.com, Dictionary.com, bartleby.com, dictionary.die.net, WordReferenced.com or wordwebonline.com which was the one where I first found it when I began to use the word which is defined as follows: aliterate: A noun;  1 aliterate, aliterate person;  a person who can read but is disinclined to derive information from literary sources; in an archaic sense as Mr. William Buckley use it as meaning a person who could read and write but chose not to derive information from what they read, a trait he accused liberals of often having in that they would read what someone wrote but would intentionally choose to misinterpret what they read and then disseminate untruths about what someone wrote. That the sense of the word that I accuse you of. Now you may well disagree that you didn’t do so, but please have the courage and decency to apologize for calling me illiterate for using it.

Do you own a dictionary?

  Yes, I do.

While I’m on this subject: “Jewish Rabies”! Do you mean “Rabbis”? “bazaar claims”! Do you mean “bizarre”?

Ye, I did make those spelling errors, but unlike you I won’t claim I was tired although I did write the response in the very early morning. However, in that very response you made a few errors such as: gnorance rather than ignorance, Gramm rather than Graham, pedophila rather than pedophilia, youhave rather than you have, preist rather than priest, yu rather than you, So,go rather than So, go, intolerence rather than intolerance, and adieu which you chose to use the out dated definition rather than the more common usage as found in thesaurus.com as follows: main entry:  adieu; part of speech: noun; synonyms:  adios, aloha, au revoir, cheerio, exit, farewell, good-bye, so long, valediction. But I do see you didn’t challenge the rest of my interpretation of the meaning of your farewell. I didn’t include practise, as you spelled it three times, as that was on another of your posts where you also wrote citizens.Foreigners rather than citizens. Foreigners, dont’ rather than don’t, indeep rather than indeed, politicans rather than politicians, and diferent rather than different.

As I see it you made seventeen errors to my two. Yet you stated “I do know, however, that I am far more knowledgeable than most other people, including you.” I guess that justifies your calling me the semi-illiterate ignoramus rather than admit you have a problem with the English language as well. Furthermore, I see you don’t use paragraphs. I would think a PhD would know that using them makes for easier reading. It’s a matter of grammatical structure which you accuse me of knowing nothing about. Perhaps you’d like to elucidate more on that.

Now do you have any other questions? If not, I have a few.

What’s the basis for your claim that I’m anti-Catholic?
Why were you not able to find out that the word “aliterate” was a real word yet chose of chastise me because I couldn’t find any sites that lists your achievements?
What’s your constitutional argument that I’m not allowed to say you’re not a gentleman in the modern usage of the word?
If the modern word “gentleman” is unconstitutional, then isn’t your insistence that another poster address you as Major or professor hypocritical?
Would you reject the Dictionary.com definition of the term gentleman as a civilized, educated, sensitive, or well-mannered man?
Is the Naval War College, a prestigious institution, the only military war college?
Is the Naval War college a military war college or not?
Did you take offense because I forgot you said NAVAL War College as opposed to the Army War College or the Air War College?
Why did you imply I was racist?
Am I the semi-illiterate ignoramus when it’s you who made seventeen or more spelling errors to my two and it’s you who doesn’t know the existence of let alone the meaning of the word “aliterate?”

Dear Ms. Sabin, Do you mean that Obama’s supposed support for eugenics makes him a COMMUNIST? In fact, the Commies had little or no interest in such racial fantasies. Why? Because both Stalin and Trotsky believed that human nature would be transformed by reorganizing society along Communist lines. They thought that capitalism lowered most people’s intelligence. thus, to end capitalism and creat a Communist society would transform human nature. That’s not eugenics but social engineering. Certainly the latter is as misguided as the former. But they are hardly the same. The two main groups of which I am aware that studied, practised or attempted to act on eugenic concepts were AMERICAN ANTI-BLACK RACISTS and the NAZIS.
So, do you think that Obama is a Nazi or an anti-Black racist? That’s really strange.

>>And your number count of errors and mistakes is very amusing… You bring me - however uncharitable it is on my part - great joy.

Small pleasures for small minds.

;>)

voxoreason, can we assume you’re another manifestation of Major Professor Brian Robert Sullivan, PhD, and world renowned writer and hero?

If you had read the reason for the count of the professor’s errors you might have understood, but that would mean acting like a mensch. The good gentleman Sullivan, your alter-ego I believe, chastised me for two spelling errors using some derogative names. Yet as I pointed out to him, you, in the very same post he, you, had made numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Now what would you call that professor? Please answer honestly if you can, like a real Marine officer would.

By the way, I understand very well that you’re uncharitable. I would add hypocritical, dishonest, and cowardly as well Mr. Sullivan.

I continue

Nunc dimittis -quite literally. Have you right-wing fools gotten your passports yet? You do want to leave while you still can by plane, car or train. If you wait until January, you may be forced to flee to Cuba in a leaky boat. That’s not such a bad place any more, now that Raul Castro has begun instituting capitalism.
What do I mean? Over the past 48 hours, the campaign has been decided. It’s not so much McCain’s comments about bringing back the draft or seeming to be so disconnected from the rest of us by not even knowing how many houses he owns or even his stated belief that one has to have a net worth of at least $5 million to be rich. Rather, it’s one more sad sign of his incipient Alzheimer’s.
I don’t mean to gloat, this is a nightmare for him, his wife and kids. McCain deserves a better way to go into the dark night. But his remarks indicate what happens to one’s mind when assaulted by that horrible disease.
Of course, one can state something similar about Obama. He clearly is not in control of himself, either. He used to be a sweet guy. Not anymore. Now that he’s gone on the attack, what other explanation for this is there except he is possessed by a demon. Is it Beelzebub, the “Lord of the Flies”? Is it Mephistopheles, who dragged Faustus screaming down to hell? No, I think it’s far worse: it’s Legion.
Obama is clearly possessed not by one but multiple demons. (Remember what they told Jesus: “Our name is Legion, for we are many.”)

Dear Mr. Benitez, Your story about how your wife was treated causes me outrage. If a priest and a nun dismissed your wife for the reasons you indicate they stated, then they are guilty of heresy theologically and also exhibited gross stupidity. What subject did your wife teach? I ask because while certain subjects taught in Catholic schools such as religion or even history are required by Canon Law to be taught by Catholics in Catholic schools (and that right is protected by civil law) that is not true for the majority of subjects. There is no such thing as Catholic mathematics or Catholic chemistry. But I am very curious about what the two of you did in response.
It is true, given our laws governing separation of church and state, that schools under religious authority enjoy certain exemptions from the laws that govern public or non-religious schools. Nonetheless, you had a number of options.
1) Did you write to the bishop of the diocese in which this outrage took place?
2) Did you contact whomever covered religion in your local newspaper? Likewise, did you contact local television stations?
3) Did you write to the representative of the Holy See to the United States?
4) If the priest was a member of a religious order, did you write to the head of that order, or, at least, to its local head? In the case of the nun, she had to have belonged to a particular order and therefore you could have contacted her mother superior?
5) Did you inform you state and federal representatives?
6) Did you picket the school?
I ask these questions because even without taking legal action - about which more below - one of the strongest weapons you could use in such a situation was ridicule and public shame. The Church is very sensitive to such accusations and, based on other examples, such actions almost always produce positive results.
I don’t know how you feel about the ACLU, but you might have contacted them, as well. I don’t know whether your local chapter would have been willing to take your case. But even if you had hired a regular lawyer, he could have most likely dealt with the situation in a private manner and arranged a settlement. Church authorities fear publicity about hypocrisy and scandal. In a country which presently has a Protetant majority, that is all the more true.
Of course, you would have been helped by some evidence, such as a baptismal certificate for your wife, if she belonged to a denomination which issues such. Or, at least, you could have been aided by a letter from whatever church she attended, to certify that she was a worshipper in a Christian church. In any case, with a certain effort on your part, you almost certainly would ahve gained satisfaction, at least in the form of money.
The Church can hardly claim to be the unique repository of virtue. Dante, after all, although not a member of the Church hierarchy, composed a epic poem about hell, purgatory and heaven that is in congruence with Cathoic doctrine. He placed many bishops, cardinals and popes in hell. (I might disagree with whom he chose. But that’s a quibble.) But the point is that Catholics are just a liable to eternal damnation as anyone else. What the Church does teach is that it is the repository of the truth as preached by Jesus and his apostles, and that truth is protected and guided by the Holy Spirit. However, that hardly offers insurance that anyone from the Catholic laity, the clergy or even the papacy is not at the same risk as any other person of bringing down upon themselves temporal or eternal punishment.
If what you have related is the full and true story - and I don’t mean to question that - you were dealing with evil. Evil must be exposed and confronted, lest it grow in power.
To put it in a very colloquial and non-religous sense, consider what Woody Allen once wrote: if you are dealing with Nazis, you don’t argue with them, you smash their heads with baseball bats. I mean that metaphorically in your case but I accept what Mr. Allen wrote in the case of Nazis and others of their kind.
You are a free man in a free state - based on liberal principles. But only if you take action, can you triumph over illiberal words and actions. 
As I said, I remain deeply outraged to learn what happened to your wife. May God forgive the people who wronged her. I don’t. (I will explain later why I seem to contradict Catholic doctrine in this case.)

Brian or whoever you are, thanks for showing your true colors. Of course you want all “right-wing fools” out of the country. It explains your comments about your disrespect and contempt for those you don’t agree with. If there were any doubt you wanted harm to come to others it’s over. So which Gulag camp have you signed up to run? For someone who claims to be a Marine Major, who if it were true would have taken a pledge to defend the Constitution, you post like a Jarhead.

Dear Mr. Benitez, Once again I am astounded by your inability to think clearly and to read with comprehension. Look back through the blogs on this and other sites. Consider the paranoid comments about what would happen to the country if Obama were elected. If the people who wrote them actually believed what they wrote, then they should be preparing to flee. But I was ironic and sarcastic. It seems such takes on nonsense are beyond your ken. My point, you knucklehead, is that not only is the election now effectively decided and that we are witnessing a genuine tragedy - the mental disintegration of a true hero - but that if said bloggers were sincere, they would be preparing to depart for elsewhere. Of course, they aren’t.
In addition, why are you incapable of discovering what I have done and who I am? It’s all over the the internet and not posted by me. For example, look at the front page of the NY Times Book Review for 2 May 1993. Find a copy of any of my books or articles, as posted on line. Look at a Yale University course catalogue for the 1984-88 period or the same for the Naval War College for 1988-91. Look me up in the indexes to the NY Times. Find the book on those Marines who won Silver Stars in Vietnam. Look at microfilm of Corriere della Sera for the June-July 1994 period, etc. etc. Do you actually think that what I have written about myself isn’t true? Your use of “claim” in my regard astounds me. Get a post office box if you fear the consequences of supposed mad dog personality. I would be glad to mail you any proof you request as to what I have done and who I am. I can’t grasp the cause of your obtuseness. Perhaps it is because you think that a person who demolishes your fantasies has to be a liar, a con artist or a poseur. But the truth is that you are terrified of having your illusions shattered, isn’t it?

Dear Mr. Galt, Once again, you have made a fool of yourself. How could you possibly have any notion of my knowledge of network or computer security? Did you ever work for the NSA or even with the NSA? (Yes, there is a hint there.) I mentioned what I wrote in that regard only to point out what was incorrect about your notions of how effective libel and slander suits can be, however preposterous their legal premises might be in the eyes of some. (You raised the issue, not me.)
As for what you call MY bloviation, re-read your pitiful attempt to belittle me. You made a string of comments about me that were not only ridiculous but that revealed enraged jealousy. (By the way, would you like an invitation to dine with me and my wife? I would be happy to pay your way and put you up. I make the offer to prove to you that what I wrote is entirely true. If you do accept my invitation, let me know what you like to eat and what wines you prefer. I would be sure to suit your tastes. I assure you, I am completely sincere) 
As I wrote, I would also be glad to send you proof of everything I stated about my life, if I had a mailing address of any kind. 
Some other points: you acquire your knowledge of psychiatry and psychology from web sites? Amazing! You think you know what I hate most about myself? Think about what that reveals about you. It is certainly true that there are things that I have done and said, failures, missed opportunities and so forth that I very much regret. For example, I never visited the national museum in Baghdad before it was looted and I failed to prevent - insofar as I could - the suicide of a friend. But is that type of thing not true of all people? But as for hating myself, there are certain clear indications of such misery. To the best of my knowledge, none of them apply to me. Do you have any ideas in that regard? Do tell. Who knows, you might help me.
By the way, in regard to “poseur,” in what way do you think I deserve to be described as such?
But remember what I wrote to you about humiliation. You’ve already made a fool of yourself about such matters as my fame and fortune. Want to do so again?
And why should I stick to Italian military history? I certainly enjoy reading and writing about that subject. But, at the moment, I enjoy tormenting you far more. Please give me the chance for more of that.

Dear Messrs Benitez and Galt, I address this blog to both of you on the same matter. The existence and name of the National Security Agency was never a secret. That was true about the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which operates our spy satellite system. By the last years of the Cold War, such secrecy had become rather pointless, hence the joke about “no such ORGANIZATION.” NSA headquarters is located at Ft. Meade MD, that of the NSO near Dulles airport - although that latter fact is not widely known.
Are either of you willing to travel to Arlington National Cemetery on 8 September? If so, I would be happy to meet you there and makes things clearer to you. That day, LtGen William Odom’s body will be buried. He died unexpectedly in his sleep several weeks ago. But it takes time to prepare a burial ceremony for a three star general. There are only a small number of horses to draw the caisson and the guard troops at Ft. McNair need time to rehearse.
Bill Odom was an instructor at West Point in the early 1970s. He expected to retire soon and began studying at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Columbia U toward a PhD, to prepare for entering civilian life. One of his professors was Zbigniew Brezhinski. Since Odom had been US military attache in Moscow, he and Zbig had many interests in common and soon became close friends. After Pres. Carter made ZB his national security adviser in 1977, the latter persuaded Odom to become his deputy. Bill rose in rank very rapidly. By the end of Carter’s term, he had risen to lieutenant general and been appointed to head the NSA.
Odom was extremely liberal. (I guess the Commies must have noticed and turned him during Bill’s Moscow days, right?) Nonetheless, Pres. Reagan left Odom in place during the first part of his administration. Despite a common perception to the contrary, Reagan had many liberal friends and was even close to a goood number of ex-Communists. After all, Reagan had spent many years in the Hollywood community and been head of the Screen Actors Guild. He had no objection to keeping Bill as head of the NSA. (So Reagan must have been a Commie or, at least, heavily influenced by them, don’t you think?)I became acquainted with Odom thereafter and eventually we became friends. That relationship strengthened after Bill became an adjunct professor at Yale.
As for your doubts about what I only hinted vaguely about, they should be resolved that day at the ceremony. I’m quite serious about this suggestion.
P.S. Mr. Galt, do you have some kind of compulsion to make yourself look like an idiot?

Bob: Or did I misattribute the remark on counting the number of errors that I pointed out in Dr. Sullivan’s post?

Could be. I don’t pay that much attention to this guy’s posts, but have noted that he can’t write a post without a number of misspellings, typos, and a large dose of what John Galt called (correctly, in my view) projection. Brain is a legend in his own mind.

Accusing me of being Brian writing under another alias was very insulting. I’m sure you’d feel the same way!

I do think you went off a bit half-cocked in the blast you leveled at me, but if there was some kind of misunderstanding on your part, apology accepted. As stated, I have no beef with you, and I am by no means a Brian clone.

Some people DO consider me rather opinionated. Imagine that!

modification to previous post:

I could enjoy having dinner with you and Laura, however that pleasure will need to be deferred to some future time when we both know more about each other and have developed some mutual trust and respect.

To Brian R. Sullivan - #85:

I believe your Post #85 is right on.  There are a lot of partisan bloviators, spinners, revisionists and theorists rambling on and on here who, while painting their own particular works of verbal propagandistic art, ignore the workings of the real world and the realities and practicalities that go with it.  Your post certainly reflects real world history as I know it.

Personally, and unfortunately, I believe there’s still more than enough ethnocentrism - - and garden-variety prejudice and chauvinism - - alive and well in this country to preclude the election of a black man or a white woman as president.

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/Wuerker/art_images/mw1080526_lr.jpg

Mr. Sullivan or whoever you are, I see no reason to answer your questions about my views on or my wife’s experience with the Catholic Church as you wouldn’t believe me in any event. Simply put, you’re a close-minded bigot incapable of believing anything but your preconceived prejudices. Due to your irrational outbursts and contempt for others I find it hard to believe you were ever a military officer or a professor in a military school. As I have pointed out, your conduct would be considered unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. It’s a pity because I would find it absolutely fascinating to hold a civil discussion with someone with the experience and education you claim. By the way, if you were witnessing for the Catholic faith, why would anyone want to accept it? Not once have you’ve shown the love of Christ.

The USA is not a democrat republic. 
She is a Constitutional Republic.

Also, the democrat political party’s complete name is, the Socialist-Democrat party.

So, if one is a part of that political party,  they are automatically a socialist.

Isn’t it interesting that political party never seems to tell the truth about anything? -
Not even the real name of their party.

Personally, I never call them “Democratic” because they are not.
They’ve moved beyond democrat or socialists.
They are anti-American tyrannists.

@Kaci:  You illustrate precisely the point i’ve tried to make here—time and time again—that one cannot get an honest, accurate look at anything if one constantly polarises the situation, i.e. creating a false dilemma by assigning every idea to one or the other extreme end of the spectrum.  It’s a common fallacy among religious fundamentalists (just as one example), who insist that the world can be understood purely in black-and-white terms, and that there’s no middle ground.

Therefore, by this dubious logic, dissenters are traitors, advocates of separation between church and state are atheists, those against going to war are ‘appeasers,’ and Democrats are communists.  i could say also that conservatives are fascists, and be justified, so long as i ignore the fallacy.

Case in point—you said: “[Democrats] are anti-American tyrannists.”  Do you sincerely believe that the Democratic party is trying to ‘scuttle the ship,’ so to speak?  i think, rather, that you would be justified in saying that there is greater concern among Democrats for the way wealth is distributed in society, but basically calling the whole party a lot of traitors is a bit extreme…

As this is a site ostensibly promoting ‘accuracy,’ wouldn’t it seem that such outlandish characterisations are a bit inappropriate?

@helen sabin:  Okay…so the Democrats are tyrants vying to destroy America because they (and a whole host of others…including myself) are against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?!  That’s your reasoning?  Eh…i would hardly call that an act of treason.  Speaking of exaggerations such as that…did you bother to read a single thing i wrote above?

Also, per your sentiments on Pelosi—and i’ve said this before—i can’t stand her, and neither can most of her constituents.  Frankly, we’ve been sold down the river for an undisclosed number of political favours.  i’m becoming convinced that she was catapulted to the top to be a yes-woman for the Bush administration.  So there that is…

On your second point, i have serious doubts of your having actually read the Global Poverty Act itself, and are instead relying upon pundits spewing disinformation (referring to the act as a tax).  Nowhere in the bill is it specified how the solutions the bill obligates the President to find will be funded.  i’m not certain where your numbers came from.

With even a rudimentary understanding of history and international relations (i don’t claim to be an expert myself), one can begin to understand why it is in the best interests of the US to mitigate worldwide poverty to the greatest extent we are able—and i’m not speaking from a solely humanitarian perspective.

The above should suffice for #3 as well.

As for #4, it’s no secret that we could afford universal health care if half the total US tax revenue didn’t go straight to the Pentagon.  We’d have even more revenue if someone would endeavour to do a massive internal audit of the federal government as a whole, and shore up all of the profusely-leaking cracks in the system.  Also, what the hell are we doing bailing out major corporations?  Conservatives go on about how the US shouldn’t be a nanny state, or a welfare state, yet you can almost hear the crickets when corporate welfare comes up.  For myself, i’m fairly ambivalent on the subject of universal health care, however, it’s important to consider that the nature of the economy has changed.  Thus, for the vast majority of Americans these days, there is very little hope of actualising the American dream our parents did—of being employed by one company long enough to secure retirement benefits and remain financially independent in their later lives.  In the foreseeable future, unless things change (which will likely require heavy government intervention), emergency rooms nation-wide will be burdened with aging, uninsured folks in sufficient numbers to overwhelm hospitals’ operating budgets, and the country will be forced to adopt some variety of socialised medicine.  Much of this can be attributed to outsourcing, and in a broader sense, a corporate culture wherein such things as employee loyalty and national identity have been casually tossed aside in order to cut costs and maximise profits.  Coupled with insider dealings between the government and (for example) major pharmaceutical companies (not-so-coincidentally, top donors to the Republican party), guaranteeing that Americans purchase only domestic prescription drugs, at many times the price.

Now, i’m not going to argue for Obama’s platform for him—also as i’ve said before—i’m confident he can do that for himself.  My prerogative on these forums is to try and infuse a semblance of reality to the discussion.  Going back to my original point, outlandish polarisations go nowhere toward establishing any kind of ‘accuracy.’

Blackhat:  Why are you against drilling in the ANWR?  IT is totally SCRUB land and dry cracked river bed type topography and it is NOT the pristine wilderness that the GREEDY $$$$ driven environmentalists say it is.  I have been there - have you?

Further consider this:  If we used our own gas and oil and sold it on the world market, we too would be flush with petrol dollars like Iraq and Saudi and etc.  We could pay off our national debt, reduce the trade deficit and make our country flush with $$$. We could pay .25 cents a gallon for gas.  IF we drilled, it would bring down world prices like a weighty stone as we could fill demand here and over seas! 

Don’t tell me that the poor little animals would suffer either in ANWR - they love the pipeline there already and often walk its length or lie beside it for warmth!!  WAnt pictures of this?  Want to hear what Sarah Palin the governor of Alaska says about the animals andthe pipeline? 

Its like the animals where I live - deer abound and they don’t care if I walk up to them (unless its November when they are rutting) and they are doing well mingling with folks and cars and etc. 
Mountain lions, bear, coyote, wild turkey, etc etc are in abundance and get along fine with “civilization” and so would the animals in ANWR.  ALSO with the technology we have today, drilling could be safe and clean.  Further if we went for clean coal to provide our electricity, we could sell the oil overseas above and beyond what we need here. 

Second - I have read the GPInitiative and it is dangerous to our control of the United States.  Have you read it? 

AND….anyone who would want the United Nations to control anything having to do with money is CRAZY!!  REmember the oil for food scandal?  And that was not the first one!  Go read about the corruption of the UN Blackhat - if you need some URL’s let me know and I will provide them to you. 

The UN has the worst reputation for honesty and good administration.  AND I further belive that if Obama gets elected, he will use the global poverty initiative money to help his tribesmen in Africa to take control of their country AGAINST the current Administration and this funding is one way of doing it.  I will bet you a cup of coffee on this if he gets elected - wanna bet?

And as far as the bill goes - it was rushed through by BIDEN and LUGAR without proper vetting!! It didn’t go through discussion or committee as most of the bills in the house and senate are routinely done.  Most of those who voted for it didn’t realize what it said or its impact on the US!!  Go look it up and see comments on it.  This site has many articles on it - go to the archives and read them!

And if OB wins - you will see this thing run through the senate quicker than the runners were in the olympics!  The US Congress has their fingers in the pot and will get $$$ from it - and I bet OB is the master money taker of the group.  Ask yourself who gets the contracts to manage this program?  Who gets the contracts to bring the food, shelters, etc?  HMMMMMMM???  Ask where has the 18 BILLION we give each year gone?  Why are people still starving if we give 18 BILLION a year toward alleviation of poverty??

AND consider that the job of government is to protect the nation - according to the constitution - and NOT to provide health care for its citizens.  That is a citizen’s job.  And don’t tell me they can’t afford it - most can.  All they have to do is give up cell phones, and they would be fine.  Do you know the typical amount most folks spend on cell phones PER MONTH is about $98.53 cents?  Some bills run as high as $300-500. per month!! 

The average amount paid by Americans as part of their cell phone bill taxes is around 16.8% of their cell phone bill and this includes Federal, State and Local taxes.  Figure out how much money that is per month and you would have a good start on your medical insurance premiums!! 

Why is it in the interest of the US to mitigate poverty overseas? HMMMM???

I see NO benefit to this as we have spent 18 BILLION a year and who has benefited?? tHE POOR ARE STILL POOR!! 

Does the Muslim world to which we give aid appreciate it?  Does MExico to which we give aid appreciate it? Do any of the countries to which we give aid appreciate it?  Why then do they say WE are greedy when we fund their countries?  HMMMMM???

Instead, take that money away and use it here to reduce our national debt, pay our OWN people who are poor and help them!  THAT is the benefit to the US!

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON BAILING OUT CORPORATIONS AND HOME OWNERS WHO WERE TOO STUPID AND GOT IN OVER THEIR HEADS OR SPECULATORS WHO WANTED TO FLIP HOUSES AND GOT STUCK!  We should have NEVER bailed them out!!  If MCC gets in, I hope he puts a stop to this disincentive type support of irresponsible Americans! 

I totally agree with you on: We’d have even more revenue if someone would endeavour to do a massive internal audit of the federal government as a whole, and shore up all of the profusely-leaking cracks in the system. THE GAO needs more people to check the waste of our $$$$!! 

NONSENSE:  IF Americans really wanted to sacrifice like our parents did and actually WORK they could have the AMERICAN DREAM!!  And what is that by the way?  How many have big screen TV’s?  cell phones?  nice cars?  designer clothes?  leather jackets?  fancy fingernails and toenails?  go to football games and concerts? 

In the foreseeable future, unless things change (which will likely require heavy government intervention), emergency rooms nation-wide will be burdened with aging, uninsured folks in sufficient numbers to overwhelm hospitals’ operating budgets, and the country will be forced to adopt some variety of socialised medicine.
WE ALREADY HAVE THAT BLACKHAT AND ITS CALLED MEDICAL AND MEDICARE.  BUT IF WE GOT RID OF THE ILLEGALS, OUR SYSTEMS WOULD BE LESS BURDENED!!

Both parties are on the take from big donors BH - not just the GOP!!  ANd if you want meds go to Mexico and walk in and purchase most anything you want at 1/8th the price that meds are sold here.  I do this all the time when in Mexico.  Or go to CAnada - same thing!  Why do we pay more?  BOTH parties take huge contributions from the drug company lobbyists!! 

AND ob’s energy policy?  GIVE ME A BREAK!!  This is the most ridiculous policy I have ever read!  HIs timeline for getting things done is so ridiculous it is making me laugh my head off.  AGAIN - his inexperience is showing.  FOR example:

Here are TWO points to illustrate why this guy is dangerous and a MARXIST in disguise: 

“...Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.” 

AND why are WE investing in a PRIVATE????? effort?  Then its not private is it?  150 billion on top of the 845 billion (more than we have spent on the Iraq war for the last seven years BTW) and where is this money coming from?  HUH? 

“...Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon – on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.”  HOw is he going to build places to plug these in?  Who gets the contract and who pays for the construction?  Which plug in cars get 150 miles?  None that I know of!!  I don’t thinkthey have been created yet and if they have they are prototypes that will take a few years to even come on line or have factories to produce them!! 

  And by 2015?  That is only 7 years from now.  Have you ever seen the government get anything done in 7 years?  This is pie in the sky thinking that STUPID AMERICANS want to believe - its a myth!  We don’t need this, we need to drill here and now and use the coal we have in abundance to meet our energy needs!!  We also could build nuclear plants and more windmills - although Pickens plan only benefits him!! 

Come on BH - you have good ideas especially about PILOSI and her corrupt being, but voting for OB and hoping he will do something new and different?? Wake up my dear and smell the corruption on the horizon!! 

Really READ his proposals an start adding up the amounts he has “promised” to all just to get the votes.  HE is a TYPICAL politician who is as corrupt as the rest of them!! 

His choice of Biden should show you what he is like - the same old….same old…

You said “And as far as the bill goes - it was rushed through by BIDEN and LUGAR without proper vetting!! It didn’t go through discussion or committee as most of the bills in the house and senate are routinely done.  Most of those who voted for it didn’t realize what it said or its impact on the US!!”

I must respectfully disagree with you. You’re being too kind to the scoundrels in Congress. Most bills don’t go thru discussion or debate but are tacked on as riders or rolled up into packages and voted on without our legislators even reading them let alone debating them. That’s why we need legislation like the One Subject At A Time Act, the Write The Bills Act, and the Read The Bills Act. You can find their descriptions on DownsizeDC.org.

By the way, I lived in Alaska for four years and found it to be beautiful and fascinating.

Roberto - something personal like what you are discussing is NOT something you should put on the Internet!  EVERYTHING you post goes public and it could be used or gathered to your detriment. 

LEt me give you an example:  teachers at one school were using the school’s email to discuss students.  This is “public” equipment and a parent sued to gain access to the Public Equipment and won!  ALL discussions sent by email were released to this parent - and that includes personal chatting teachers did. 

The informaition you released is sometimes gathered by data mining companies and thus YOU or your wife could be targeted for advertising, investigation, etc.  Please be careful what you post about yourself personally.

To Helen Sabin - #100:

Off-the-wall emotionalism and totally unproductive extremism.  A perfect example of what is REALLY creating an overall decline in “Americanism” - - - irrational, intractable, and venomous partisanship.

To Elaine - Post #14:

It’s embarrassing and shameful that in 2008 some ostensibly-educated person could write anything so idiotic - - an ignorant, prejudiced, racist and virulently anti-Catholic screed.

Can you tell us, in your opinion, what “church” is not “phony”, nor “Commie”, nor “Socialist - - or which “church” might be an “arm” of the Republican Party?

Those who believe the American system of public education is in trouble apparently have a point.

Roberto - China in particular is good at searching out information - been there done that so be careful!

Look at the policies from the DEMS - socialistic in nature so are members automatically socialist?  I would say most are such and here’s why:

Obama says tax windfall profits:  voters agree - that is socialism in action!

Obama says Medical care for all:  Voters agree -that is socialism in action!

Obama says Abortion rights and killing babies after they are born is ok - typical eugenics stance of the Dems from early times: Voters agree - that is socialism in action!

Obama says formation of a “civilian” army as large as the regular military- I wonder if they wear brown shirts? - socialism in action!

MOst voters think they are liberal but instead they are socialists! They just don’t know the history of what socialism is! 

Socialists want control over education, profits from companies, public/private partnerships with the state in charge, offer medical care and guaranteed wages to all, etc etc

This is OB to a T folks - I suggest you read, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg and learn what is fascism, marxism, and socialism and see if that isn’t the DEMS today!!

Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.  Fascism is by definition a right wing ideology.  Don’t believe me?  Look it up:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
As much as so-called conservatives enjoy lumping liberal thought with socialism/communism, there is a difference.  As it happens, this country was founded on ‘liberalism,’ though over the last 50 or so years, the right has succeeded in connotatively ‘loading’ the term, using it more or less pejoratively.  If you read this and still believe liberalism is a bad thing, then i suppose we fundamentally disagree on what defines American values.

Again, you’re exaggerating (thereby polarising) the similarities between progressive economics and socialism.  Yes, i agree, there are vestiges of socialism in some Democratic ideas, yet to say that the Dems want a totally socialist economy (i.e. complete government control/ownership of industry) is rather rash, and runs counter to the fact that most ranking Dems and GOP alike have a substantial stake in the current, capitalist economy.

The main difference between the right and left so far as the economy is concerned, is that the left takes into greater consideration how wealth is distributed within society, while the right tends toward a devil-may-care attitude as to who controls wealth, and what implications that has in the big picture.  The common criticism is that the left is trying to forcibly redistribute wealth—essentially taking from the rich and giving to the poor in the form of ‘handouts.’  The criticism of the right is that they care only about rich people.  The reality is, whatever your feelings about personal wealth accretion, it’s important to at least pay attention to the way wealth is redistributed, for good or ill, as throughout history, governments have risen and toppled (French Revolution, the Russian Revolution), genocides have been incited (the Holocaust), and millions of people permanently affected as a direct consequence of wealth distribution, or the lack thereof.

[i apologise, i have to cut this short…more later]

To blackHat - #119:

Right on, man!  Plenty of people on this forum have no idea what the actual meanings are for terms such as “liberal”, “socialism”, “fascism” - - nor do they have a real working knowledge of the definitive distinctions running along the political spectrum from far left to far right!

I also certainly agree that this country was founded on the basis of a “liberal” political philosophy - - and I just as certainly believe that Jesus was most certainly a “liberal” - - and that Christianity was, in fact, founded on the classical definition of “liberalism”!

On the issue of the economy - - I would say that a classical “liberal” would believe in a “managed economy” or “fair trade” or a certain amount of “regulation” of the economy - - whereas the classical “conservative” would believe in a laissez-faire economy, free trade and free markets, and absolute non-regulation.  (As far as I’m concerned, this latter perspective has, more or less, been in force for the last 20 years or so - - and has proven, over that time, to be a dismal failure to the vast majority of middle-class, working Americans.)

Well said Jack! We have a lot of home schooled children in our area. It is very Conservative. There is a 17 year old High School Student and his father in our Toastmasters. This kid is homeschooled and brilliant. I don’t want him leaving the club for college. My Veterinarians two girls are homeschooled. The oldest is in her 3rd year of College, and has a four point average. She is going for her PhD in Economics. An amazing difference from the Publically schooled children in the same town. There is a school in San Antonio Texas that was just completed. It had a budget of 30 million. The total bill for this monstrosity with chandeliers was 90 million. And they scream for mo money. Half-wits. Just another example of how the Dems lie to fool the American People.

Something to ponder Jack. Had this in my archives and thought it would interest you.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/66ead9217 cb955bc

“Obama says tax windfall profits:  voters agree - that is socialism in action!”

that’s an opinion, Helen.

“Obama says Medical care for all:  Voters agree -that is socialism in action!”

ditto.

“Obama says Abortion rights and killing babies after they are born is ok”

I can say without fear of serious contradiction that he said no such thing.

“Obama says formation of a “civilian” army as large as the regular military- I wonder if they wear brown shirts? - socialism in action!”

Does “Homeland Security” ring a bell? Is that socialism? 

“MOst voters think they are liberal but instead they are socialists! They just don’t know the history of what socialism is!”

good thing you’re here to straighen them out. 

“Socialists want control over education, profits from companies, public/private partnerships with the state in charge, offer medical care and guaranteed wages to all, etc etc”

Um, OK.

“This is OB to a T folks - I suggest you read, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg and learn what is fascism, marxism, and socialism and see if that isn’t the DEMS today!!”

I’ll try.

re: political compass

The X axis can be thought of as socialism on the left (negative) end and capitalism on the right (positive) end.

The Y axis can be thought of as authoritarianism on the upper (positive) end and libertarian on the lower (negative) end.

Stalin, Mugabe, Lenin, Marx, and Benedict XVI are in the upper left quadrant. Bush, Blair, Hitler, Thatcher, and Reagan are in the upper right quadrant. Ghandi is in the lower left, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand in the lower right.

Ayn Rand, interestingly, thought the US was moving toward Fascism based on the definitions I gave above (private ownership, strict authoritarian controls and regulations on production).

dave: [The quote is of someone else, followed by dave’s response] “Obama says Abortion rights and killing babies after they are born is ok”

dave: I can say without fear of serious contradiction that he said no such thing.

No, you can’t. That’s how he voted, his excuse being that it would pose a threat to Roe vs Wade… except that there was an amendment attached (to the Federal and State versions) that stated Roe vs Wade would NOT be affected.

Obama voted for negligent homicides for babies that survived Partial Birth Murders, allowing babies that popped out alive to die by hunger and exposure.

The law basically stated that a woman can demand an abortion, but she can’t demand a dead baby to show for it, hence “Born Alive Infants.” Obama voted against it.

vox-

“No, you can’t. That’s how he voted, his excuse being that it would pose a threat to Roe vs Wade… except that there was an amendment attached (to the Federal and State versions) that stated Roe vs Wade would NOT be affected.”

He voted that “it’s OK to kill babies after they’re born”? Please show proof; this is one hell of an accusation!

“Obama voted for negligent homicides for babies that survived Partial Birth Murders,”

so that was up for a vote, eh?

“allowing babies that popped out alive to die by hunger and exposure.”

ditto…  please show the proof. paraphrases, hearsay not admissable. SHOW PROOF! If you can’t, STOP LYING!

Helen-

There is some seriously flawed thinking going on if you feel that the quotes above reflect Obama voting that “it’s OK to kill babies after they’re born” or that he voted “for negligent homicides for babies…”, two ridiculous statements to which I was seeking verification.

Helen-

I know what his voting record is, and it has NOTHING to do with the accusations of OK’ing NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE OF BABIES, for Christ’s sake!

“I don’t believe in late term abortion nor killing a baby after it is born.  That is murder pure and simple.”

Do you have any reason to suspect that Mr. Obama feels differently?

Helen-

Was there a vote on a bill called “THE LAW TO PROTECT BABIES AFTER THEY ARE BORN”??? Please show me that bill.

“He does NOT want the child to have any medical care or treatment AFTER it was born ALIVE!!”

Show me where he said/voted on that. With specificity. 

“Letting a child die after it was born alive in an abortion procedure is what he voted FOR!! “

So the vote was “All those who want to let a child die after it’s born, say ‘aye’ “, and Obama said ‘aye’, but the others said ‘nay’... Is that about right?

“DAVE - go research online about this matter.  You are arguing something of which you don’t know a lot about!!”

No informed person could dispute that I have a better understanding of this issue than you. Your points smack of someone who listens/watches right-wing cheerleaders like Sean Hannity et al and simply quotes them. (He has consistenly misrepresented Obama’s vote(s) and their meaning.)

dave: please show the proof

The act was the Infants Born Alive Act.

Obama voted against it. You are familiar with Google? Use it. Don’t bother me.

If you can’t read the news for yourself, don’t expect others to do it for you.

Your ignorance is not my concern. But I suspect that there will be a commercial concerning this, so you’ll simply have to read the news for yourself or wait for the commercial.

Proof? What makes you think that your knowledge (or lack thereof) makes any difference to me?

The informed are familiar with this issue.

Helen

I see that you, too, are familiar with the Infants Born Alive Act, enacted because babies who popped out before their brains could be scooped out during a Partial Birth Murder, an induced breech birth (harmful to women, BTW: my wife had a C-section to avoid a breech birth), were allowed to die of exposure and starvation.

Sadly, the most informed person on the board isn’t aware of this! Pardon me while I cry for a sec. Okay, that’s enough (and didn’t take a whole second).

Conservatives are stuck with all these facts we can’t use effectively because libs play the child’s game of covering their eyes and believing, if I can’t see you, you’re not really there…and you can’t see (through) me, either!

But to close on a nice note: the scroll bar is SO nice because it allows us to skip through several Brian R posts in a row, missing what might be 10 pages typed. How convenient.

Best to you and yours

:>)

i.e. Born Alive Infants Protection Act

It was stated it had unanimous support - that is incorrect.  It had all voting yes to be “called” unanimous - and there were no “no” votes - but Barack Obama voted - present.  That is neither yes nor no, but it is a Senators way of not having the moral courage to vote, and in this case because he dissented in Illinois - one could easily infer that he wanted to vote no, but did not have the cajones to do so.

“There are many sources to be checked if Dave would put out the effort to do so.”

Mea culpa. I’m guessing nobody here has taken the time to find out why Obama opposed the legislation. I’m further guessing they won’t bother, as that would keep them from hysterically shrieking “HE WANTS TO KILL BABIES!” on top of “HE IS A MARXIST!” and “HE IS A MUSLIM!” He’s none of the above and he had reasonable legal opposition to the BAIPA.

He’s no Marxist, but Helen is right when she says “...and he will bankrupt you and me with all his grandiose ideas”, at least based on his speech last night, which was all rhetoric and no balance sheet.

I do, in fact, listen to Rush and Sean, and two or three other right wing zealots (Levin, Grant, Ingraham) on NYC radio WABC (We Attack Barack Constantly). This is why I feel I know where the radical right is coming from.