Ahhhnold is a liar too? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Cyrus

09-05-2004, 02:58 AM

Arnold's speech was very effective and invigorating, at the GOP convention. In any rousing speech, there's bound to be some hyperbole and a little fibbing. But Arnold's speech was, unfortunately, a true demagogue's. He lied, knowingly, on at least three key occasions:

1. Austria did not suffer any brutality under the Allied occupation. (Yes, Austria was NOT occupied solely by the Soviets, but by the big 4 Allied powers, US, Britain, France and USSR. Arnold omitted this bit, because it wouldn't sound too nice to say that he was scared from American tanks!) Although a kid at Arnold's age would indeed be scared from the sight of all that destruction around him and the reality of a military occupation, there is nothing linking the occupation of Austria with ...Soviet communism.

2. Austria did not have "socialism" at any time, in government or in policies, and especially not "Soviet-style" socialism, as Arnold claimed. A cursory glance at post-WWII Austrian history suffices for this. Of course, back home, Austrians are laughing (http://www.thewgalchannel.com/politics/3705274/detail.html) about Arnold's lies.

3. Arnold lauded Bush as a man who "ignored the polls" and went against the popular sentiment by invading Itraq when the country was against that. Well, Arnold lies. The country rallied solidly (and foolishly) behind Bush (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-20-poll-usat_x.htm) when the President took the unilateral decision to invade.

The above are documented lies. There are other gross inaccuracies too, in Arnold's speech, but although blatant, they would be interpreted differently by conservatives:

-- Arnold says Hubert Humphrey was essentially a ..socialist! This at the time America was engaged in a war in Asia intended to stop socialism. And the administration of Hubert Humphrey was instrumental in escalating that war.

Etcetera.

But, all in all, as I said, a most effective speech! Who cares if something is true or a true lie, right?

nothumb

09-05-2004, 03:05 AM

The first two are lies. The third is merely a blatant factual error that in actuality probably addresses the fact that most of America thinks now that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq.

NT

wacki

09-05-2004, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Arnold's speech was very effective and invigorating, at the GOP convention. In any rousing speech, there's bound to be some hyperbole and a little fibbing. But Arnold's speech was, unfortunately, a true demagogue's. He lied, knowingly, on at least three key occasions:

1. Austria did not suffer any brutality under the Allied occupation. (Yes, Austria was NOT occupied solely by the Soviets, but by the big 4 Allied powers, US, Britain, France and USSR. Arnold omitted this bit, because it wouldn't sound too nice to say that he was scared from American tanks!) Although a kid at Arnold's age would indeed be scared from the sight of all that destruction around him and the reality of a military occupation, there is nothing linking the occupation of Austria with ...Soviet communism.

2. Austria did not have "socialism" at any time, in government or in policies, and especially not "Soviet-style" socialism, as Arnold claimed. A cursory glance at post-WWII Austrian history suffices for this. Of course, back home, Austrians are laughing (http://www.thewgalchannel.com/politics/3705274/detail.html) about Arnold's lies.

3. Arnold lauded Bush as a man who "ignored the polls" and went against the popular sentiment by invading Itraq when the country was against that. Well, Arnold lies. The country rallied solidly (and foolishly) behind Bush (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-20-poll-usat_x.htm) when the President took the unilateral decision to invade.

The above are documented lies. There are other gross inaccuracies too, in Arnold's speech, but although blatant, they would be interpreted differently by conservatives:

-- Arnold says Hubert Humphrey was essentially a ..socialist! This at the time America was engaged in a war in Asia intended to stop socialism. And the administration of Hubert Humphrey was instrumental in escalating that war.

Etcetera.

But, all in all, as I said, a most effective speech! Who cares if something is true or a true lie, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be precise, I haven't seen any proof that Arnold has lied, yet. For example the article you linked Arnold to quotes Arnold saying he saw tanks as a child, but tanks had pulled out of his own hometown 2 years before he was born. Arnold never said they were in his town, he only said he saw them. When he was visiting his uncle at the soviet checkpoints which apparently did exist in Austria, he would of more than likely seen a tank.

Statement 2:

30 seconds on Google gives

Timeline (http://timelines.ws/countries/AUSTRIA.HTML)

In 1970 Bruno Kreisky became the 1st socialist chancellor of Austria, and in 1949 the Austria general elections brought losses to both the People’s Party and the Socialists. Many former Nazis rallied behind the new Union of Independents. The government was composed of a coalition of the People’s Party and the Socialists.

So Austria did have socialism, and Facism as well.

Statement 3, "ignoring polls".

Arnold never mentioned which polls he was referring to. If he said American polls, yes he would be lying. If he said European polls, he would be telling the truth. He didn't state which polls.

European (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm)

I don't see how Arnold lied at all. He may not of been as specific as he should of been, but he didn't lie.

Cyrus

09-05-2004, 05:26 PM

"The article you linked to, quotes Arnold saying he saw tanks as a child, but tanks had pulled out of his own hometown 2 years before he was born. Arnold never said they were in his town, he only said he saw them."

That's not THE big lie, that's just a stupid distortion of facts. No, the big lie is this, try to understand: Arnold says he saw Soviet tanks (let's say he did) which were fearsome and oppressive, and to him signified socialism! Which is an absurd lie. There were American, French, British and Soviet troops (and tanks) all round, for ten years. He simply could not have had the "first-hand" experience of ..Soviet socialism, as he claimed, because no such thing went down. He was just leaping all over logic.

"In 1970 Bruno Kreisky became the 1st socialist chancellor of Austria, and in 1949 the ... government was composed of a coalition of the People’s Party and the Socialists. So Austria did have socialism."

No, Austria never had socialism. The names of the parties mean little. The party that ruled Mexico for ninety years was called REVOLUTIONARY Institutional Party. (Go figure.) The Socialists in France were more anti-communist than the Right! The Socialists in Portugal helped put down the socialist rebellion of military officers in 1974. The Socialist-Democrats in Russia became the Bolsheviks! The Worker's Party in Germany became the Nazis. How many more examples do you need? (I got plenty.)

There have never been "socialists" in power in Austria. Of course, anything to the left of total, unbridled capitalism would be socialism for Arnold, or you. But that's your fault. The nomenclature records policies, not names of parties.

"Arnold never mentioned which polls he was referring to. If he said American polls, yes he would be lying. If he said European polls, he would be telling the truth. He didn't state which polls."

Are you serious? You can't be serious. You mean Arnold could ever have been implying any polls but the American ones? He could not have implied any other and this is a hundred percent certain. It's elementary.

Imagine! Congratulating the American president because he ignored the polls in ...Italy! You are blindly grasping for straws here.

Dr Wogga

09-05-2004, 05:29 PM

....maybe the pompous, elitist, pro-terror anti-semite crowd aren't what the American public wants afterall!! Gee whiz, maybe the American public rejects the "waffle-itis" of the demogogue party's candidate. And gee willickers, won't we be hearing fo the next 4 years how W 'stole' this election because of the Swift Boat group - I mean, let's face it, there always has to be a reason. No anti-semite windbag could bear to think that their "I know what's best for you" ramblings are exactly what Mr and Mrs Joe America DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR!!!!!!! Har-rumph!!!!

BTW, don't you find it interesting that the demogogue party machinations, supposedly pro 1st amendment rights, are sooooooo busy trying to keep Barnes & Nobles and Borders from sellng, and the publisher from printing, the book they don't agree with??? Guess what? Nobody's fooled. Double digits dicckk-head. Double digits. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....4 mo' yo'

Cyrus

09-05-2004, 07:13 PM

Had a smoke after that and everything?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

anatta

09-05-2004, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Arnold never mentioned which polls he was referring to. If he said American polls, yes he would be lying. If he said European polls, he would be telling the truth. He didn't state which polls."

Are you serious? You can't be serious. You mean Arnold could ever have been implying any polls but the American ones? He could not have implied any other and this is a hundred percent certain. It's elementary.

Imagine! Congratulating the American president because he ignored the polls in ...Italy! You are blindly grasping for straws here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not going to fool me with your pompus, elitist, waffleyietese logic. Dickhead! Four mo' years! The Terminator Rocks, you Sore-Loserman!!

MMMMMM

09-05-2004, 07:38 PM

I think Wogga is right on this one.

Most of the American public doesn't want liberal elitists telling them what they can do, what they can say, how to spend their money, why we ought to seek international approval before scratching our rumps, why the government can always make better use of your money than you can, or what books Barnes and Noble should be allowed to carry.

It's a grassroots movement, Cyrus, and the liberal elites are on their way OUT. And what's more, they aren't even liberal in the first place! (else they would be Classic Liberals instead of Quasi-Socialists looking for further ways to control the masses).

The Awakening has begun and more and more Americans are realizing the folly and phoniness of today's so-called liberalism. And they're getting sick of it: they've seen it doesn't work, and that's about all there is to it. Give it ten more years and the sentiment shift will be even more apparent. However Cyrus I strongly suspect you will be one of the last holdouts.

Dr Wogga

09-05-2004, 08:51 PM

.....and all pompous liberal phonies will keep holding out, hoping against hope, that the Osamas of the world can win. They can't. But it is sad. Isn't it?

On the more serious side, IMO it will be a long time before the American public get tricked again with a schmuck like slick wille - A.K.A. the great stainmaker. I think the after-effect of an administration that was so morally bankrupt, whose policies were poll-driven rather than principle-driven, will keep Republicans in the White House for quite awhile - unless they screw up royally (like Bush Sr did on the tax waffle). Kerry, like Clinton, like Teddy the swimmer, are not true liberals, but opportunists. In short, they suck - maybe not as much as the french or the canadians, but they do suck quite a lot.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha: dougle digits cyrus, double digits. Hopefully, you can still find work in Damascus

The_Tracker

09-05-2004, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On the more serious side, IMO it will be a long time before the American public get tricked again with a schmuck like slick wille - A.K.A. the great stainmaker. I think the after-effect of an administration that was so morally bankrupt, whose policies were poll-driven rather than principle-driven, will keep Republicans in the White House for quite awhile

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I know what you mean. Getting tricked into thinking that things like millions of jobs being created, a huge surplus (instead of a record deficit), a better relationship with the rest of the world, crime dropping, and people just flat out having more money in their pockets, are a bad thing.

I don't know how people could fall for that crap.

The current drudgery we are in now is far more enjoyable.

Four more years of unemployment, sky high gas prices, and endless terrorism ramblings!

Go bush!

MMMMMM

09-05-2004, 09:45 PM

Well...I don't think Cyrus is so much hoping that the Osamas of the world can win, as that the Georges of the world can't.

Still...is ISN'T all relative, is it? That is what the Left fails to understand. Relativity in Physics does not imply relativism in human affairs or between political ideologies. The Left can't seem to grasp that, though--whereas the Islamists grasp it only too well, but believe their creed is the only creed sanctioned by God and the only way for mankind to live, and are willing to kill any number of kids in order to establish it.

Bottom line is most of the world sucks, which is why it is sheer folly to attempt to garner the approval of thugocracies and theocracies. Better to get a missile shield and tell them where to stick it--especially Iran, and Kim Jong-il's military gulag which masquerades as a country.

Rapprochement with dictators always fails--appeasement to aggressors always fails--and the U.N. always fails. Bottom line is the whole world would be much, much more of a horror show if not for the good ol' USA.

America, Canada, U.K., Europe (well sort of) and Japan and Aussie/Kiwi (and yes, even Israel)...if all countries were like those countries, the World would be a much better place.

Communist and/or Islamic countries...if all countries were like those countries, the World would be Hell on Earth. Yet fools somehow think it is all relative.

So, Cyrus (and ACPlayer)...put THAT in yer pipes an' smoke it!(instead;-)) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Cyrus

09-05-2004, 10:30 PM

Not just pompous as usual but currentlyassociating with racist bigots too! Beautiful job.

"Relativity in Physics does not imply relativism in human affairs or between political ideologies."

Now if I was to tell you that this was a nonsensical phrase, you would respond that the part about relativity was "in jest", and that "you know" what relativity is all about. Sure you do, Einstein.

"The Left can't seem to grasp that, though--whereas the Islamists grasp it only too well, but believe their creed is the only creed sanctioned by God."

More hodge podge. Isn't this a belief, about exclusivity of Righteousness, held also by, for example, the Christians? They too believe only in their own one and only God and believe that Christianity is the only religion sanctioned by God.

Tolerance you said? Tolerance is practiced by both religions. As a matter of fact, more different religions enjoyed freedom under Islam than different religions under Christians. The horrors befallen upon "heathen natives" in the Americas, Africa, Asia and practically everywhere by "armed men" accompanied by "Men of God" carrying crosses, put to shame the horrors befallen upon different religions under the sword of Islam. Read up a book or two, e.g. about the Ottoman empire, when you visit the loo for your number two.

...As to your agreement with Wogga, I congratulate you. You have finally joined the company that dares express its bigotry and racism openly, if a little more crudely, something that you possibly always wanted to do, but chose instead to act like you are really keen to ...discuss things. You actually envy this macho posturing and the boorish attitude.

So, it's hasta la vista.

MMMMMM

09-06-2004, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not just pompous as usual but currentlyassociating with racist bigots too! Beautiful job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so if someone is bigoted, it is improper to agree with them on anything? As if a bigot can't make some good points too! I should think you would be more open-minded than that, Cyrus. Bigots should not be associated with. Why, pray tell, is that? If one cannot maintain one's own fair-mindedness in the presence of a bigot, then in my opinion that fair-mindedness is more like weak-mindedness.

[ QUOTE ]
"Relativity in Physics does not imply relativism in human affairs or between political ideologies."

Now if I was to tell you that this was a nonsensical phrase, you would respond that the part about relativity was "in jest", and that "you know" what relativity is all about. Sure you do, Einstein.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a nonsensical phrase. Many today take the idea of relativism too far, likely having heard tell of the great Theory of Relativity, and supposing that "Relativity" ought to be more widely applied (without ever understanding either relativity or relativism).

[ QUOTE ]
"The Left can't seem to grasp that, though--whereas the Islamists grasp it only too well, but believe their creed is the only creed sanctioned by God."

More hodge podge. Isn't this a belief, about exclusivity of Righteousness, held also by, for example, the Christians? They too believe only in their own one and only God and believe that Christianity is the only religion sanctioned by God.

Tolerance you said? Tolerance is practiced by both religions. As a matter of fact, more different religions enjoyed freedom under Islam than different religions under Christians. The horrors befallen upon "heathen natives" in the Americas, Africa, Asia and practically everywhere by "armed men" accompanied by "Men of God" carrying crosses, put to shame the horrors befallen upon different religions under the sword of Islam. Read up a book or two, e.g. about the Ottoman empire, when you visit the loo for your number two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see Christians murdering kids and innocents today in the name of religion, Cyrus...there are plenty of Islamists doing it, though. Christianity managed to outgrow its most intolerant aspects over the centuries, but Islam seems to be reverting ever more to medievalism.

[ QUOTE ]
...As to your agreement with Wogga, I congratulate you. You have finally joined the company that dares express its bigotry and racism openly, if a little more crudely, something that you possibly always wanted to do, but chose instead to act like you are really keen to ...discuss things. You actually envy this macho posturing and the boorish attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you seem to imply that a bigot cannot make any points on any subjects worthy of agreement. Dare I say it, your attitude in this post seems a touch bigoted. And yes I like speech that cuts through the chase or rails against the fallacies of the Left--especially if it is a mite insensitive--for there is little more insensitive than the totalitarian approach of true Leftists, and little more intolerant than telling the rest of us what we must do.

Wogga at times has indeed expressed crude bigoted remarks, and at other times has expressed fair insights. For you however the crude part apparently nixes any value of any other part. That seems a sadly limited approach, to my way of thinking.

You will see, too, that in America today's elitist liberalism is on the way out. People are just getting sick of it. Sorry if that's too bigoted for you to countenance.

[ QUOTE ]
So, it's hasta la vista.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry...you'll be back. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Dr Wogga

09-06-2004, 12:32 AM

......Love to se people standing up to this bozo. He talks about bigotry, but it is he who is a fervent anti-semite as any person on these pages. He hates Israel, witness his rush to post about the Israeli spy story at the Pentagon. Lets be clear about one thing, cyrus is a pro-islamic apologist and closet supporter of terror. Truly, a scumbag.

Dr Wogga

09-06-2004, 12:52 AM

.....just keep telling the anti-semitic bigot: "Double digits for W!!!!"

P.S. Be extremely careful when using a potentially inflammatory word like [mo']. The elitist politically-correct douchebags will claim you are mocking ebonics and call you a bigot. I, OTOH, enjoy mocking ebonics, because it is nothing more than P.C. illiteracy, sanctioned by those too gutless to stand up to the black thugs who pose as "Reverends". Long live the English language!!!!!

MMMMMM

09-06-2004, 01:01 AM

"
......Love to se people standing up to this bozo. He talks about bigotry, but it is he who is a fervent anti-semite as any person on these pages."

Cyrus is anti-Israel, that's for sure, but I couldn't say for sure that he is anti-Semitic. My guess is he is a little bit.

" He hates Israel, witness his rush to post about the Israeli spy story at the Pentagon."

Cyrus also rushed to post about the American so0ldier beating an Irai who later died, right after I posted about an Iranian judge who put the rope around a 16-year-old girl's neck. The two are not all that comparable for many reasons (not saying either is OK; just that they certainly are far from equivalalent and that the Iranian execution is representative of deep systemic totalitarianism and intolerance).

I do think Cyrus dislikes Israel intensely, and rather likes the Arab states (hard to imagine why, as Israel is nowhere near as intolerant as all the Arab states that surround her. Arabs in Israel have far more rights than do Jews in Arab states).

"Lets be clear about one thing, cyrus is a pro-islamic apologist and closet supporter of terror."

I think Cyrus makes excuse for terrorists a bit but that is not his main goal or principal view.

" Truly, a scumbag. "

Here I must disagree. I am actually rather fond of Cyrus on these boards, misguided as his views tend to be, and ever unwilling to admit when he is wrong. He tries and tries and tries, but just can't seem to help it somehow. Cyrus adds flavor and character, and I think the forum would actually be lessened without him.

MMMMMM

09-06-2004, 01:05 AM

I've read that Ebonics was actually invented in England.

Bill Cosby enjoys mocking Ebonics too.

andyfox

09-06-2004, 01:13 AM

"Cyrus also rushed to post about the American soldier beating an Iraqi who later died, right after I posted about an Iranian judge who put the rope around a 16-year-old girl's neck."

I'm much more upset about the American soldier than the Iranian judge. I hold Americans to a higher standard. When I post about what I see as a failure of American politicians to live up to our principles, it's not because I don't see the differences between our society and others, (the difference in degree that you have spoken about) but rather because I see them very clearly. And I won't accept compromise with our principles from our leaders, whereas I expect them from those in other countries.

There are many on the right who then call this "Blame America First" or something similar to that. When I'm critical of Bush or Nixon or Clinton it isn't because I see them as worse than Hussein or Ho or Mao; it is because they're American leaders who need to adhere to American laws and standards.

MMMMMM

09-06-2004, 01:32 AM

Yes, Andy, you have expressed this view before.

Where I disagree is when the other wrongs are much greater or more systemic. If it were just one-for-one I would not disagree with you at all. However the opression and executions are endemic in Iran and therefore that upsets me much more. Why? Because it is causing far more people to suffer, that's why.

All else being equal it would upset me more when one of "ours" does something horrible. However when a few of ours do bad things like at Abu Ghraib and in the incident Cyrus posted, that causes nowhere near the level of widespread suffering such as do the oppression of women and dissidents in Iran, and the frequent executions. The differences are vast in numbers and in severity as well.

I can see where the former would upset you more on a "responsibility" basis--but the other must surely upset more on a "humanitarian" basis. To me, the greater humanitarian basis is simply much, much larger in scope, breadth and weight. Since I despise brutal totalitarianism, it follows that I must despise very widespread and severely brutal totalitarianism all the more. And from the point of view of those who are suffering, your argument would be largely besides the point. 100 priests tortured by "them" are suffering a lot more than one priest tortured by "ours" (to flip around a Chomsky parable). So when the weights are so very disparate, I cannot agree with you or Chomsky.

andyfox

09-06-2004, 01:44 AM

I have no control over what a judge in Iran does. I do have control over what an American soldier does.

trippin bily

09-06-2004, 01:55 AM

andy if you do have control over the american soldier...
then what happened?

MMMMMM

09-06-2004, 02:03 AM

"I have no control over what a judge in Iran does. I do have control over what an American soldier does."

So you are placing the responsibility argument over the humanitarian argument--even when the humanitarian cause is much, much greater on one side (by weight of numbers).

I'm sure the people getting imprisoned or executed don't give a damn about the responsibility argument.

I feel a lot sicker in my gut thinking about 10,000 people being arrested and executed, than about 10. Bet their families do, too. And let's not forget the millions living in fear.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

P.S. Besides, who said we can't do anything about the Iranian judges. Nearly the whole country of Iran wants to get rid of the mullahs but they can't because of their hired thugs. I'd say wait 'til the ruling mullahs are gathered together in one place then let Zeno have target practice on them with something that requires only one hit to do the job. Good-bye Mad Mullahs, Hello Free Iran.

andyfox

09-06-2004, 10:45 AM

I'm also more shocked when an American soldier beats a prisoner to death than when an Irani judge hangs a "criminal." My point is that it's not a blame America first attitude if I post about our shortcomings, nor an ignorance of others' evil, nor an inapt comparison of others' crimes with ours.

Your suggestion, however, about Zeno's target practice deserves consideration.

andyfox

09-06-2004, 10:48 AM

I don't have complete control. But we live in a contry where the people have control over their laws and their leaders.

Dr Wogga

09-06-2004, 09:38 PM

......but, I believe he at least has the honesty to tell other blacks THEY are the problem - not whitey. However, if you or I told the blacks THEY are the problem, we would be labeled as racists. OTOH, cyrus is, was, and always will be an anti-semite bigot

Dr Wogga

09-06-2004, 10:47 PM

....I guess those wonderful ideas coming out of the massachusetts senator are just bowling over Mr & Mrs Joe America - don't you think???

Speaking of massachusetts, isn't it refreshing that in these times of world terror and turmoil - e.g. 100+ children getting murdered by chechen scumbags - and the U.S. fighting overseas, the economy and gas prices surging, that good ole' massachusetts is focused on gay marriages? Boy oh boy Tractor, they sure have their finger on the pulse of the average middle class American in that state - don't you think??? An even better question is whether anyone from massachusetts should be allowed to vote in a national election unless they renouce their residency??? I mean, other than the france or canada, is there a more stupid place?

But, gosh oh gee!!! That's some party the demagogues have. Very, very impressive.

riverflush

09-06-2004, 11:15 PM

A LOT of people involved in this post really need to double and triple check the history of socialism in Austria before they go about labelling anybody a liar...especially when attacking someone who, you know, grew up in Austria.

Karl Renner was the (non-elected) Federal President of Austria from 1945-1950. Austria did not have an elected leader until Renner's death in 1951. Renner was a reknowned Marxist author who laid a significant Marxist/Socialist footprint in post-WWII Austria. Socialist Theodor Körner served as President from 1951-1957...and in fact, Austria elected Socialist leaders in every election until 1986. However, the socialist hold on Austria began to wane in 1972 when leaders reluctantly agreed to open up and sign the country's first bi-lateral free-trade agreement.

Anyone who thinks Arnold grew up in a free-trade, freedom-loving, business-friendly country really is just skewing the story to fit their own inherent biases. I don't care what your CNN story says.

Google baby, it's your best friend.

elwoodblues

09-07-2004, 09:24 AM

Just out of curiosity, what should the state of Massachusetts have done about the chechen scumbags?

[ QUOTE ]
that good ole' massachusetts is focused on gay marriages?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you listen to Bush's speech at the convention? It seems like he has a focus on gay marriage as well.

andyfox

09-07-2004, 01:33 PM

It's the president who has made gay marriage a big deal. He's the one who has proposed a constitutional amendment banning it. Even his vice president is against it.

Cyrus

09-08-2004, 01:37 PM

"Yes I like speech that cuts through the chase or rails against the fallacies of the Left."

Of course, you do. That's why you've been called on it. Wogga is (in)famous for his overt racism and bigotry. He's been chased out of numerous message boards after becoming a problem for posters of all stripes, conservatives or not.

That you chose Wogga as your poster boy is quite (at least!) revealing where you stand! "Cutting to the chase" is a key word for posting childish insults against all those that disagree with you - and Wogga.

"Don't worry...you'll be back."

Oh. I gave you credit for knowing the true meaning of the words "hasta la vista", but I see you followed the Arnold-usurped meaning. Let me explain it in English: It's au revoir and not adieu.

...The problem is that your posts have now become too odious to give them too much time. You're on a downward spiral to yahoo-ism. But is's your choice.

Cyrus

09-08-2004, 04:37 PM

"I've read that Ebonics was actually invented in England."

Languages are not "invented". Esperando is not a language proper, for this reason. Languages are living and evolving. Putting the "blame" on language instead of examining the social and historical circumstances that shape language is like someone pointing to you the moon and you looking at his finger. Typical of short sightedness.

But that's what you get when you lie with dogs.

Cyrus

09-08-2004, 04:38 PM

"Anyone who thinks Arnold grew up in a free-trade, freedom-loving, business-friendly country really is just skewing the story to fit their own inherent biases."

That kind of labeling is well known, well worn and too tiresome in our day and age. By your criterion the only capitalist country in the world is America and in Europe maybe Lichenstein qualifies... How full of oneself must one be to think in such terms?

"I don't care what your CNN story says."

Of course you don't care. You don't want to allow facts to confuse you. Good for you.

"A lot of people involved in this post really need to double and triple check the history of socialism in Austria..."

Or maybe the history of Austria proper. You don't know what you're talking about when you're talking about socialism in Osterreich. Sorry but there's no other way of putting it.

riverflush

09-08-2004, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyone who thinks Arnold grew up in a free-trade, freedom-loving, business-friendly country really is just skewing the story to fit their own inherent biases."

That kind of labeling is well known, well worn and too tiresome in our day and age. By your criterion the only capitalist country in the world is America and in Europe maybe Lichenstein qualifies... How full of oneself must one be to think in such terms?

"I don't care what your CNN story says."

Of course you don't care. You don't want to allow facts to confuse you. Good for you.

"A lot of people involved in this post really need to double and triple check the history of socialism in Austria..."

Or maybe the history of Austria proper. You don't know what you're talking about when you're talking about socialism in Osterreich. Sorry but there's no other way of putting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to answer your first question, I'm this______________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________full of myself. It's easy to be full of oneself when one is right. Riverflush also likes to talk in the third person, see how I do it?

Österreich - someone gets a cookie for knowing their German words today!

Other than that...you're just flat-out wrong. Google baby...or a library...suggestions to open your mind. Or you can just keep ignoring the history of socialism (protectionism, planned economy, lack of trade agreements) in the 20th century - that seems to work for many (while the world moves on without them).

Keep hope alive! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

MMMMMM

09-09-2004, 12:40 AM

You would do better to quit worrying about the source and instead focus on the issues. I realize this may be much to ask of you.

Dr Wogga

09-09-2004, 11:00 PM

.....stand up to this douchebag and he goes into his bag of corny cliches. What anti-semite cyrus and his ilk will not address is the voting record of their demagogue-in-chief. Imagine this massachusetts hypocrite questioning the military's equipment when the dick voted against it. As I have said repeatedly, kerry is on both sides of every issue.....and the American people see through it. PS - Therein lies the beauty of Fox news that will point that out. However, don't expect to see those items pointed out on the network news or cnn, the communist news network.

To paraphrase that GREAT AMERICAN Oliver North who said its kerry's voting record that will cost him the election. All the other Viet Nam-reserve-swift boat-book publishing garbage will not have any impact, but kerry's voting record will doom him. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha: double digits for dubya!!!And for my bestest ebonics: Foe mo' yo'!!!!! Go dubya!!!!!!

MMMMMM

09-09-2004, 11:22 PM

Cyrus' nonsense needs standing up to, certainly; I just don't think that he is a "douchebag" or is "vile scum". Why don't I think that? Because I estimate he is about 98% sincere. Therefore, the good Cyrus is deluded;-)

andyfox

09-09-2004, 11:26 PM

Just curious: what is it that Ollie North has done that makes him, in your opinion, a great American?

hetron

09-09-2004, 11:38 PM

You can NOT be serious!
[ QUOTE ]
I think Wogga is right on this one.
Most of the American public doesn't want liberal elitists telling them what they can do, what they can say, how to spend their money, why we ought to seek international approval before scratching our rumps, why the government can always make better use of your money than you can, or what books Barnes and Noble should be allowed to carry.

[/ QUOTE ]
What they can do or say? What books Barnes and Noble should be allowed to carry? You aren't going to tell me that the right is more pro-censorship than the left in the US? Are you out of your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's a grassroots movement, Cyrus, and the liberal elites are on their way OUT. And what's more, they aren't even liberal in the first place! (else they would be Classic Liberals instead of Quasi-Socialists looking for further ways to control the masses).

The Awakening has begun and more and more Americans are realizing the folly and phoniness of today's so-called liberalism. And they're getting sick of it: they've seen it doesn't work, and that's about all there is to it. Give it ten more years and the sentiment shift will be even more apparent. However Cyrus I strongly suspect you will be one of the last holdouts.

[/ QUOTE ]
That WHAT doesn't work? The Laissez-faire system of pre-FDR America, where the average American was overworked, underpaid, undereducated, and without basic worker's rights?
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, which have done nothing but increase the deficit?
I guess someone forgot to tell the half a million protesters in NYC about the right wing "grassroots" movement.
Finally, the american mainstream is more left of center when it comes to things like taxes than you think. I remember reading a poll a few years ago stating that most Americans don't mind tax increases as long as the government spends the money on something they deem worthy.

Finally, someone forgot to tell the plurality of Americans who voted for an Ivy league educated democratic son of politician for president in 2000 that "liberal elitism" is out.

hetron

09-09-2004, 11:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
.....just keep telling the anti-semitic bigot: "Double digits for W!!!!"

P.S. Be extremely careful when using a potentially inflammatory word like [mo']. The elitist politically-correct douchebags will claim you are mocking ebonics and call you a bigot. I, OTOH, enjoy mocking ebonics, because it is nothing more than P.C. illiteracy, sanctioned by those too gutless to stand up to the black thugs who pose as "Reverends". Long live the English language!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about? Or is this another one of those "woggaisms" you have your doctorate in?

Cyrus

09-10-2004, 02:15 AM

"You can just keep ignoring the history of socialism (protectionism, planned economy, lack of trade agreements) in the 20th century - that seems to work for many (while the world moves on without them)."

You have a very narrow idea of what is socialism and an even narrower of what is capitalism.

I don't have much time for this kind of elementary discussion, at least not right now. You would do yourself a service if you were to peruse some books on political economy. Not just Hayek, Friedman or other classics, but books with a wider dispersion of positions. Start with the little-sized "The origins of Capitalism", if I may suggest something.

Churchill once said that democracy is a bad system but it is the best we have. The same applies for capitalism, as evidenced by the significant shortcomings in today's global economy. And while a fully planned economy is out of the question, it is necessary, if not vital, to ask the questions.

And not just proclaim axiomatically (or allegedly empirically) that one system is the end-all.

Take care.

--Cyrus

PS : By the way, Austria never had any "socialism" that was worse than FDR at his most "socialist". Believe otherwise at your detriment.

Cyrus

09-10-2004, 02:22 AM

"You would do better to quit worrying about the source and instead focus on the issues. I realize this may be much to ask of you."

You are doing a serious mistake here. The issue is oprimal allocation of time, and nothing else.

I have lots of opportunities to discuss and examine (and focus on) every issue I want, under more beneficial circumstances and with more worthy opponents than in a "debate" than Wogga. Why would I waste my time "debating" anything with a person that has shown himself to be a major internet troll, a bigot, a racist and a bona fide lunatic? The percentage is simply not there.

And you have not been paying attention. The record of Wogga and fellows like him is quite instructive: Wogga, for instance, has been kicked out of every web forum if he posted more than once per month, because, at the end, the webmasters got tired of his nonsensical ramblings and space-hogging flames. (In bj21.com, for instance, he insulted Don Schlesinger one time too many so his ass was toast.)

But it's your time and it's your money. (I enjoy the show for free.)

Cyrus

09-10-2004, 02:37 AM

"What is it that Ollie North has done that makes him, in your opinion, a great American?"

Oliver North engaged in the trade of illegal drugs. He also engaged in the trade and smuggling of arms with a regime that was proclaimed by his government as terrorist and against which regime the American government had an arms embargo. In the process he broke the law and violated his oaths as a military officer and a civil servant.

Oliver North then obstructed his government's investigation into his activities, to the full extent he could do so. (His paper shredder was red hot from the action.)

The ex-colonel was subsequently tried and found guilty for his criminal activity.

But he got off without serving time, he is unrepentant for the crimes he committed and he is a syndicated columnist. Such status qualifies Oliver North as a Great American.