CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
IIRC, the Contras were supported and funded by the CIA under President Reagan, not by the Congress. It was when Congress found that former Somocistas were supported by the Reagan administration that they explicitly banned funding of the Contra movement.
You might also contemplate how it is that a Marxist dictatorship let itself be voted out of office; hardly the threat to Central American democracy that your beloved Gipper painted...
And everything you write appears to be the work of a grumpy old man. How can you be sure all were innocent? Most probably were as most people don't give a shit about politics. Some may have felt patriotic for their homeland, relatives and ancestors.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,056
- 32,578
- 146
The poison in your head is exposed in your post.
First, you are defending the destruction of the US constitution. Congress saw the abuses the Reagan administration did with the Contra terrorists and *outlawed funding*. Reagan ignored the law and got them money from sources including the sale of missiles to Iran (to get hotages freed as well, 'negotiating with terrorists' he denied doing). You can't destroy the constitution and give the President the power to ignore Congress' constitutional power on the basis that you don't agree with the policy they choose.
That is putting your (wrong, evil, murderous) opinion ahead of the constitutional system and is clearly anti-American, criminal, treasonous.
Congress, and only Congress, has the constitutional authority to declare war, to say how the nation's money will be spent. If they pull the plug on a terrible program when it turns into terrorism, they have that right - even if they are making a mistake. You don't have the President as emperor, as Caesar, overruling them because he disagrees. But you can't admit you're wrong, you can't understand the issues why the terrorism is wrong, and so you come here trying to peddle BS that the Congress was fine to ignore.
Second, whether they were 'Marxists' or not does not justify a terrorist war against them or the people of Nicaragua. That's murdering on behalf of US corporations.
There's no moral justification, no US law, no international law, no clause in the UN charter, that 'Marxist governments are to be killed'.
You don't know jack about the region, the situation in Nicaragua, and you are the enemy of democracy where the people elected Ortega. You are just an ignorant little brat sitting in the well-off US not only voting but publically squirriling around for childish arguments to justify the real murders of real people - you are the immoral one pushing evil, not Ortega, too clueless to understand your own behavior's wrong as you 'play' poliitics, little weasel kid not being a responsible citizen or human being, a terrororism justifier.
You're what's wrong with any evil policy that relies on the fools, the lazy, the people who can't understand right and wrong, to become the cheerleaders for evil - show me an evil leader, and I'll show you people like you who are supporting them for the same wrong reasons you have, enabling evil, uncaring about the suffering you cause. Without such follower, the evil men are called 'Charles Manson', they are isolated,powerless, punished, but with followers, they are the evil leaders who can use terrorism.
The great inequalities in power between a nation like the US and a nation like Nicaragua make it all too easy for them to be stepped on like a bug, however bad the justification for the violence, but sometimes the injustice can get our system to block the violence, as it did here when the Democratic Congress said no to Reagan on his Contras - the US system working - but there you are, the criminal arguing for the violence and trampling our constitution.
But you don't need any justification, to be an irresponsible person, falling for the seduction of wanting to 'feel powerful' and indulge your own shortcomings or just lazily accepting propaganda to justify the policy, at the expense of innocents, you are not hurt if you help a bullet go in the head of an innocent person there, you can do so with a smile - the system relies on the morality of the people who have the vote here to protect people there.
Daniel Ortega ruled Nicaragua for years, then and currently. Show me the act of war he has committed against the US, the justification for our using terrorism against Nicaragua.
Third, you make a claim of him being a 'child molestor' based on an accusation. If he he, is that a matter for the Nicaraguan courts or the US? How are the Nicaraguans murdered by Contra terrorists justified if he molested someone? Is the allegation even proven, even while is does not justify the terrorism if it were?
You show a real problem in our system, where irresponsible citizens of the US are able to give license to the evil interests to do wrong against people far away. Just give them some flimsy propaganda to let them rationalize it, and the next thing you know you too can be backing a terrorist army. The Nicaraguans, who are the targets of foreign powerful corporate and governmental interests, don't get to vote for or againt the leaders who kill them.
First, the difference is, he's a biased writer, twisting the information to fit his ideology, whereas I'm not, whether the conclusions I post are right, middle, left or elsewhere.
Second, simpleton, I can praise some things about a leader and condemn others.
I've attacked FDR for more than the Japanese internments, things you are likely not even aware of.
While I'm sympathetic to the 'different times' so that we don't just blindly condemn people in the past based on our current values, even giving FDR that credit it's hard to justify his internment policy. For what it's worth, I don't think it was for the sake of persecuting them, the way the Holocaust was for the Jews, but was rather a policy of fear, when a little-known group in our society was feared to have mysterious loyaltis to their homeland emperor, the way the Japanese in Japan had remarkable loyalty to him.
In fact it's people of your political persuasion who were and are the first to call for those sorts of protections generally, so there's some hypocrisy in you condeming it now.
How many 'bad apples' would have had to commit sabotage for the American public to condemn the Japanese people in general?
But clearly there was an element of racism, when you contrast the treatment of the Japanese with that of the German-Americans, who were not rounded up.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
It's the same reason he allows Obama to get away with same fucked up things Bush did wrong without criticizing him for it. He simply refuses to acknowledge that members of his own party can be just as corrupt, just as power-hungry, and just as all-around fucked up as the opposing party. If they do something shady? Well that's OK because some Republican did it first!
He's completely blind.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
But unbiased
If what Forbes reports is true, then Kennedy was going to use Andropov to get nominated and in return Kennedy was going to help Andropov help USSR with their propaganda to try to take the heat off of them. Yeah, that is the "truth"
You mention Lincoln. Did Lincoln work with the Mexicans to thwart the President? You mention Presidents working behind the scenes. Was Kennedy?
So Teddy would have done this for peace. Well contrary to the nonsense that the war in Iraq was for oil, it was for peace. Yes, by extending American control in the area, it was believed that the US might be able to stabilize the region. Wolfowitz got Chalabi to foster peace according to the plan. All that was done was in search of peace. Kennedy wasn't interested in truth, he was interested in helping propagandist.
Now you can go on about Reagan and Nixon and a hundred other politicians if you want, but if this is true it is a black stain on Kennedy and no amount of spin will make it otherwise.
If he felt that he had to get the "truth" out he should have quit and fought openly rather than skulking with those who had been our enemy for decades.
Vidkun Quisling could be a hero with this line reasoning.
We have far too many liars in this forum. Idiots are one thing, but liars are worse.
First, if I have not said anything negative about Obama, that's not proof of any bias - it might be a fair reflection of a view that he hasn't done anything wrong. I haven't posted a word about Bush molesting children, not because I'm biased for Bush, but because I have no evidence of it.
But that's not the case. I think Obama has done a lot wrong, and I'm not sure I haven't posted more critical than positive, with a number of critical thread, including Glenn Greenwald columns which are highly critical, pointing out where Obama hasn't done the same as Bush in some instances, but even worse. Counteirng some of the lies against Obama byt the reckless right might have made those total more posts, though.
What's ironic is that a minute or two before seeing your post here, I posted a new thread with an interview of Bill Moyers, who says the Democrats are in many cases, and Obama's administation included, corrupted by the big corporate money - he lays it out how Obama's chief of staff has decided that Obama will win in 2012 mainly on this corporate money and has told the progressives to 'sit down and shut up' when the oppose Obama's compromises. I've long pointed out this battle within the party.
You are a lazy liar, who can't be bothered to get informed before you go posting lies about others. You degrade the forum IMO with your reckless behavior.
Piablomoose, who you quoted, I generally do not read or respond to for his terrible behavior.
You would do well to shut up and get informed and then speak, instead of continuing your pattern of lying. You get this response; I don't plan to waste time repeating it much.
That officer can use some more training for dealing with nuts. He was all too unable to articulate anything about his instructions.
'I can charge you with anything I want to charge you with' dosn't inspire confidence in his mastery of the legal issues.
Critical, yes, I said that; outraged, no, you have to have some understanding of the real world and the police.
I understand that some might want to see massive global tyranny in the officer's actions in the video, but it was an officer being impatient with a protestor and careless in his words.
That video isn't a thousandth the issue that the official 'free speech zones' are regaridng free speech.
The protestor was a not for his views, I've seen that type many, many times. Of course, those who agree with him will disagree he's a nut.
The people putting the joker face on Obama are not exactly increasing their vulnerability, and trying to have a dialogue about the societal status on whether 'this is America anymore' with an irritated police office isn't the most sensible way to have a useful dialogue on the subject. But it makes for great nut video clips. Die you SEE that official representative of the government say this isn't America anymor!? They ADMIT the UNITED STATES IS OVER! This is revoution, treason, revolution! froth froth.
No, I don't go along with that.
It was a bit of local chaos at a political event, not a larger systemic problem.
The officer is actually a good guy - but even he thinks a protest photo of Obama is a trespassing crime. As Obama goes tyrannical even decent cops will fold when the pressure is on. Scary times.
Ah, Reagan! Barry's shining light! A war criminal who sponsored the killing of priests and teachers, who personally ordered the killing of a 2 year-old girl, who sold arms to Iran so that more teachers can be killed in Nicaragua, a "fiscal conservative" who started the debt spiral, a liar who kept American hostages in captivity longer. Truly an inspiration for brain-dead morons. Compared to him, Ted Kennedy is Mother Theresa.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Sorry for bursting your bubble over that sociopath Kennedy, and at least spell my name right.
How's it feel to the the 4th person I've blocked from PM's in 10 years Craig?
Yes, if you look closely at the officer's shirt, in his pocket you can make out a paper with White House letterhead saying "VIOLATE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OR YOU'LL BE SORRY!"
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
With you leading the pack in that regard; the first step is admitting you have a problem. Good job.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
When Craig accuses someone of "terrible behavior," that usually means that the person in question a) disagrees with him and b) probably severely owned him. Craig has called me a "liar" many times but has yet to point to a single instance of me lying. He clearly does not understand the English language.
I blocked him as well, though I do miss his hysterical PMs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter