Tar Baby

Some of my regular commenters who are on the left seem to think that International ANSWER "just showed up" at the nation-wide rallies. Wrong (go to link entitled "The Whole World is Watching: September 24).

On Saturday all the major antiwar groups will come together for the massive rally at the White House and march, but it is the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition that has the full responsibility for the costs of the stage, sound, and setup at the joint rally, where the major speakers will appear.

(Emphasis mine.)

No escaping the taint of International ANSWER for the September 24th festivities, sorry about that.

Along with Christopher Hitchens, some leftist, anti-war bloggers are incensed by the odious presence of ANSWER at these rallies as well.

This is serious sh** and I had to listen to someone say he was a communist. Now what in the f**k does that have to do with Iraq? Too many people on the left glom on to any protest and use it as their hobby horse. You know, the only people I wanted to express solidarity with were the families of the soldiers, the soldiers and the people of Iraq suffering from US occupation. It may be cute to have diversity, but it takes away from the seriousness. You have a rally where only soldiers and their families speak, with a few pols, and even Bush couldn't ignore that. [SNIP]

Let's face facts. ANSWER are parasites who use our good intentions to push their agenda. So instead of rejoycing about the massive turnout, a hint that Bush's war is extremely unpopular, we're debating the speaker list and their abuse of their audience.

(Editing for profanity mine.)

See what else this man—someone with whom I’ve disagreed before —has to say about ANSWER.

The right repudiates its extremists and its idiots, like Pat "Roberts." It’s nice to see a few on the left do the same. To my leftist regulars: you ought to join them and save your ire for an issue that’s arguable.

(Thanks to Marc Cooper, a leftist who isn’t having ANSWER either.)

Comments

1)You have proven my point. You site anti-war leftist and they are against ANSWER.

2)I will repudiate ANSWER... there I did it. But what does it matter? They dont have their own diamond mines, TV network or the ear of the president because they can't deliver the "right wing people of faith" vote. What bif time Republican has repudiated Mullah Pat Roberts? President Clown Tim?George Will? Bill Frist? To Delay? Rush Limbaugh? Bill OReilly? Sorry David Brooks and George Will are not going to cut it.

[Bill O..]

I posted the above

[baldilocks]

I can only prove a point when you have one, Anonymous. What is your point again?

Mullah Pat Roberts? That's a funny name for a Muslim cleric.

Start making some sense or I will ban you, Bill. Again. I don't have time for your twisted attempts at logic or your marijauna-fueled, tin-foil hattery about diamond mines.

[Steve]

I think there is an assumption among the left--an assumption I once had too--that took me a while to completely put away from my mind. That assumption is that "leftwing" causes are poor and are started and funded from "grass-roots". I think that sentiment can be seen in Bill O's reference to "diamond mine", as in, ANSWER "dont have their own diamond mines".

As David Horowitz's sites (Front Page Magazine and Discover the Network) have illustrated. These groups are supported by millionaire and billionaire's contributions and endowments. Some of this wealth must have connections to diamonds, and oil, and whatever else is deemed by the "left" to be bad.

The site recently discontinued the map of connections these various groups have to their funders and other groups. I hate to seem vain but I think it was because of me :). But those connections tell a different story and I do think, from what I've been able to pick up, that this kind of funding has pretty much always been the case going back to early on in the 20th century. And, in Europe, going back into the 1800s.

So the picture is not mom and pop grocery owners vs. the diamond mines of Pat Robertson. I am no fan of Pat Robertson but I am guessing that he has got the attention of more mom and pop grocery owners over ANSWER.

As for Hugo Chavez? There is real reason for concern about him. I don't agree with Pat having said that but I've listened to Pat maybe a total of 1 hour in my whole life in dozens of 1 to 4 minute intervals between changing channels. But back to Hugo Chavez. Again, there is reason for concern there and Pat Robertson can make a difference in that one way or another.

[Steve]

Correction!: Robertson "cannot" make a difference in that one way or another.

I left out the "not" which I used to have a tendency to do and I've been pretty good at being aware of this tendency of mine and keeping that from happening. One small word can change the whole meaning of a post.

[Tully]

Just showed up at the rallies? They organized them. In fact, if the second-hand scuttlebutt I've heard from my liberal activist acquantances has any basis, ANSWER hijacked the Washington rally, running in ahead of UFPJ to grab permits and licenses after UFPJ announced but tbefore they got their paperwork straight.

The left is waking up to the fct that your "friends" can do you bigger damage than your enemies.

[Bill O..]

Baldi: "Anonymous. What is your point again?"

Me: That international ANSWER does not represent the values or beliefs of the overwhelming majority of people who are against the war. Your links to the left wing blogs above contain the evidence of this.

Baldi: "Mullah Pat Roberts?"

Me: It means Pat Roberts rhetoric and behavior is in many ways, ironically, similar to the crazy Islamist extremist we are fighting and who he says he is against.

Baldi: "your marijauna-fuelled, tin-foil hattery about diamond mines."

Me: I don't smoke marijuana or consume drugs however Pat Robertson actually has personally owned a diamond mine thanks to his friend deceassed African dictator Mobuto Sese Seko.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/343712p-293471c.html
He has also personally owned goldmines in Sierra Leon thanks to his buddy West African mass murderer Charles Taylor. You can google any of this information. Robertson has also spoken on the behalf of the child rapist Charles Taylor to President GWB so that this monster could avoid facing justice. This is how corrupt Robertson is.

In this case my broader point is that you want to tar the anti-war movement with ANSWER and ask why no left wide repudiations (see #1 above) yet will not acknowledge the lack of main stream right repudiation of, for example, titanic scumbag Robertson, who represents a huge following, by people like G.W.BUSH who he has frequent contact with. I am suggesting that this is an obvious double standard.

[teal marie]

HA!
En mix it wid some turkentime?

Too dang funny. And you warned them.

[baldilocks]

Bill: Why do you keep bringing up Pat Robertson? What does he have to with any of this? If you're trying to say something sensible, it's getting muddied by your obsession with this man. You think he's a horrible person. I get that. I don't like him either, but bringing up your stone, cold sober tin-foil hattery regarding him does nothing to get your point across. Try making it without it being couched in BS.

So you're saying that ANSWER doesn't represent America. We agree and I'm sorry that I misread/misunderstood.

[Steve]

Pat Robertson was involved in a gold mine in Liberia. I believe it was called FreedomGold. Pat Robertson has also been involved in cable and Internet in China.

But he has also been very generous at times in providing for the needy and that includes the hurricane in New Orleans.

The difference is that Pat Robertson, like almost anyone, says a dumb thing every now and then and most people can at least relate to that. You can almost expect him to either apologize or at least you might have to wait 6 months to 3 years to hear him say another somewhat dumb thing. These isolated dumb things really are not all that harmful by themselves.

Pat Robertson's role, or relationship to Christians, or Christianity, is not the same relationship that Mullahs, Imams, Sheikhs, Ayatollahs, have to Islamism. What Pat Robertson said was not a Fatwa. There was no threat honestly, even in Hugo Chavez's mind, that someone in Pat's audience was going to carry this assassination out. It wasn't something Pat was declaring in a religious sense either. He has always been one to comment on the world politically as any other person on television does.

This is an important thing to remember also. If Robertson's non-fatwas are declared to be so bad by the left then why are people like George Galloway and so many many others on the left proudly connected to people issuing real-fatwas?

The "left", on the other hand, does not, by and large, apologize for the outrageous things they say and do. They do many directly harmful things and do them more often. It is their modus operandi.

I think most of us here that have had a chance to get a feel for this whole picture by investigating the left have found that this idea that these extreme groups are of no real consequence is just not accurate. Pat's statements will fade into history and will not bring more followers. Whereas groups like ANSWER are probably recruiting among some portion of these currently unaffiliated anti-war people.

In all respects we are not talking about comparable people or organizations and their effects.

Now, back to the subject.

[V the K]

So, if the left doesn't agree with Int'l ANSWER, why do they keep showing up for their rallies? Why are the same blogs who claim that Intl ANSWER doesn't represent them encouraging people to attend their rallies?

If they really repudiated Intl ANSWER and Code Pink, they'd tell them to take a hike and set up other organizations. Can anyone name an anti-war organization that isn't tainted by anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, collectivism, conspiracy-theory nuts, or pot headery?

[Justin]

Baldilocks--I think Bill keeps up bringing Pat Robertson because many on the left think that conservatives are constantly asking them denounce fringe elements of the left that have no or little connection to democrats or 99% of liberals (Ward Churchill is a good example), while the right gets the electoral benefit of its extremists (Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Falwell) without having to do the same.

It's not really a substantive point, but more of an annoyance for a lot of liberals (including myself). Conservative are just better at highlighting the extreme positions of their opponents (I actually think the Democrats could benefit from the same rhetorical strategy, but that's a whole other matter).

For the record, I can't stand ANSWER and get really po'd when I see their reps in Union Square in NYC prattling on about how the US is destroying the 3rd world or something.

[V the K]

If the liberal Democrats think they are unfairly associated with their fringe elements, why did they put the fringe's choice (Howard Dean) in charge of their party?

[Steve]

Ward Churchill has a little more than 1% going for him when he first became news and for some time afterwards.

I am just guessing but, in an imaginary poll among just "liberals", that he would get numbers in favor of around 25% to 65%. As for now? I am guessing (hoping) that those numbers would be 10% to 20%. But still those are somewhat sizable numbers. Ward Churchill had the support of various prominent people and groups on the left.

I think there may be a misunderstanding (either genuine, or facetiously?) on the left to what role people like Robertson, Falwell, or Dobson play. It isn't the same role as many people on the left play for their cause and the word "extremist" just doesn't really fit James Dobson from what little I know of him.

The kinds of issues that James Dobson brings up, lets say, are issues that exist in our minds regardless of his taking them up and speaking about them. Whereas, it seems to me, that the "liberal" side does take up causes that are somewhat more leader dependent. Hence, in the extreme, like in the communist countries, their leader's heads are poster-ized and are paraded through the streets and draped over buildings. There is a sense, for me, of that behavior being not too far beneath the surface with the left. Bill Clinton and his Elvis-like following seems a little bit along those lines.

[Bill O..]

Baldi:
I could repeat why I keep bringing up Pat Roberston as a typical example of a serial double standard and you can pretend that you can't understand my "crazy talk" yet again... some people posting here that disagree with me seem to get it.

Steve you are right about Liberia ..I got my west African killing fields mixed up. But I must take issue with your notion that liberals are more leadership focused or that dynamics in communist countries are exclusively applicable to liberal political culture. One could just as easily say that conservaties do the cult of personality routine just as well. Do you remember the republican push to have Reagan's face chiseled into Mount Rushmore? And we could have a good deabte on W's own cult. But while Clinton has his following the Lewinski scandal really did for some time cause a lot of discord in liberal circles. The term Clinton hater predates the term Bush hater by at least 8 years. Coincidentally Chris Hitchens was editing the Nation then and was constantly using words like scumbag and slime in refernce to both Bill and Hillary. He was very represenative of opinion in the Nation then.

[baldilocks]

I don't need to pretend for you, Bill. You're just not that important.

I apologized because I didn't get you point. Don't push your luck.

I still don't get your point about PR. By referring to him as "Mullah," are you implying that PR has some sort of power over Christians similar to that which mullahs have over Muslims? All that other stuff about cult of personality with others is your opinion and you're not backing up with any links or such so I have have no choice but to call it BS.

[Steve]

Bill O,

But again, the comparison between a portrait on Mount Rushmore and what it is that has taken place in communist countries around the world is obvious to any honest reader here and is just not the same.

It is the difference, not the remote sameness, that is the key. The same way with the non-fatwa of Pat Robertson vs. the real-fatwas of Islamist endeared of by George Galloway. It is the difference between them, that crack of the fault line, that reveals information. Making them simular conceals knowledge.

Also, I should mention that Islamists also do have the large poster sized head tradition in their gatherings.

As for Clinton hating? The Clintons and their political backers did enough of their own hating of others to reap a little of what they sowed. I've never seen so many haters claim to be the hated.

But there really are some real reasons for not liking the Clintons that goes beyond just policy disagrements. Some people seem to be able to see it, and those that can, can tell when they are around someone who may be of the sort that just can't ever see it. Even among those you have the likable and the not so likable. But in either of those cases conversation is limited.

[Justin]

Baldilocks and Steve--do you really think there's no cult of personality around Bush? Certainly not anywhere near a communist dictator, but for liberal democracies, I think Bush's personality has captivated a lot of people.

Here's one link from Powerline (a little toungue in cheek, but overall serious):
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011183.php

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Steve said:
I am just guessing but, in an imaginary poll among just "liberals", that he would get numbers in favor of around 25% to 65%. As for now? I am guessing (hoping) that those numbers would be 10% to 20%. But still those are somewhat sizable numbers. Ward Churchill had the support of various prominent people and groups on the left.

Steve, that's absurd, you usually check your facts pretty well. Name one prominent liberal group that supported him (and not just in a general "he has a right to free speech" kind of way). Counterpunch magazine (far left magazine) is the only thing I could find that defended him, and most of the article was whining about how liberals are not supporting Ward. I did a Lexis search of all US newspapers for Ward going back to 9/11 (starting before the outrage story broke in January) and I found one reference to him an a Vermont paper, making him out to be a nut. There is absolutely no way you can say this guy had any importance to anyone.

Y the K said: Can anyone name an anti-war organization that isn't tainted by anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, collectivism, conspiracy-theory nuts, or pot headery?

The Society of Friends (Quakers), Brooklyn Parents for Peace, Corporate Lawyers Against War; WestChester Students United for Peace; Catholics for Peace, etc;. Here's a whole page of them found in a 1 second google search.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/groups.php?state=NY

Can't we just agree that both the left and the right has their share of crazies? Maybe we could have a right v. left lunatic showdown--each side gets to post lunatics from the other side with quotes--last one standing wins ;-)

[Steve--thanks for the Iraqi War Debriefing book suggestion--it's seems to be what I was asking for--a non-partisan examiniation of evidence that we haven't heard a million times already. I'm ordering from Amazon]

[Steve]

Justin gave examples of the following as meeting V the K's requirement for either anti-American, anti-Semitic, collectivist, conspiracy-theory nuts, or pot headed:

1:The Society of Friends (Quakers)
2:Brooklyn Parents for Peace
3:Corporate Lawyers Against War
4:WestChester Students United for Peace
4:Catholics for Peace

I wouldn't be so quick to make those judgements Justin. I am afraid it isn't so easy. I may spend some time finding out a little more about them and post later. Some of those seem like familiar names that I've come across when reading of groups that might fit what V the K was speaking of.

First off, "United for Peace and Justice" is the site where those names were found:

http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/
groupProfile.asp?grpid=6166

excerpt:

Because such stewardship had created a public perception of radicalism that made many would-be sympathizers uneasy, UFPJ was created for the purpose of putting a milder face on the anti-war movement. The distinction between UFPJ and the aforementioned organizations, however, was merely symbolic rather than substantive. From its inception, UFPJ shared with those groups a passionate hatred for the United States, a readiness to condemn any and every American foreign policy decision, and a commitment to anti-American and anti-capitalist agendas.

Leslie Cagan is the co-chair and principal leader of UFPJ. She was an original founder of the Committees of Correspondence, a splinter group rooted in the Communist Party USA. A strong supporter of Fidel Castro since the 1960s, Cagan is a committed socialist and longtime activist who proudly aligns her politics with those of Communist Cuba. Over the past three decades, she has mobilized millions of demonstrators in rallies denouncing America's foreign policies; its military-related spending; and its purportedly virulent racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Cagan has often praised Castro's Cuba, which she considers a far better place than the United States. During her seven years as director of the Cuba Information Project, she led numerous demonstrations demanding that the U.S. end its economic embargo of, and travel ban to, Cuba. "In the winter of 1969-70," Cagan fondly recalls, "I spent over two months with the First Venceremos Brigade in Cuba. Just ten years into their revolution, the Cubans had taken control of their history. . . . While we were in Cuba, Fred Hampton and other Chicago Black Panthers were murdered. It was a shocking reminder of the brutality and power of the U.S. government, and there we were in Cuba, a whole nation under attack from the U.S. As Brigadistas we were taking a risk traveling in defiance of Washington's travel ban, but we knew the risk was small compared to what Cubans and so many others around the world faced every day." The Venceremos Brigades were organized by Castro's Cuban intelligence agency, which trained some "brigadistas" in guerrilla warfare techniques, including the use of arms and explosives. Among the supporters of the many pro-Castro rallies that Cagan has attended or helped organize are such socialist entities as Casa de las Americas, the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Workers World Party, and the Young Socialists.

Cagan characterized America's 2003 military strike against Iraq as nothing more than a thinly veiled oil grab. "Oil is not worth war!" read Cagan's UFPJ Web site.
------------------
I was being upfront with everyone here in that I did say right away that it is my own personal guess that Ward Churchill would have polled favorably among those calling themselves liberal in this country from anywhere to 25% to 65% and that today I am guessing, or hoping, that it is somewhere between 10% to 20%. I would not be all that suprised though if it he were still to poll more favorably than 20% among liberals. That is, like I said, just my opinion, or you might say my perception of the political condition of those calling themselves "liberal". I think I might also be able to find the articles to back that up as well. He did speak to a pretty good size audience and received ovations afterward.
---------------------
As for your link showing that Bush has a cult following? That was a little blurb written from a guy named John. The author of that is revealed at the bottom of the article by: Posted by John at 03:01 PM :)

This "John" goes on to write further:

Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Bush's latest master stroke: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The pact includes the U.S., Japan, Australia, China, India and South Korea; these six countries account for most of the world's carbon emissions. The treaty is, in essence, a technology transfer agreement. The U.S., Japan and Australia will share advanced pollution control technology, and the pact's members will contribute to a fund that will help implement the technologies.
---
That kind of obscure nerdy stuff buried on the Internet is not what I am refering to when I, or anyone else, speaks of what is called "cult of personality." The phrase actually means by definition, and by its reason for existing, just the opposite of obscure. That is why I had written "Elvis-like".

[Synova]

I know you didn't ask me, Justin, but no... I don't think there is a personality cult around Bush. I think that a lot of people find him personally likeable. He seems genuine. He seems to have a sense of humor about himself. But nearly everyone disagrees with something about his policies. Maybe it's spending, maybe it's borders, maybe it's Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. I like the quote from Powerline, BTW, and have been known to say somewhat similar things. I think it's quite possible that History will show him to have been one of those rare leaders responsible for changing the world. Or maybe not.

The thing is that while lots of people think he's a nice guy, or perhaps are really thankful every single day that Gore was *not* president for 9-11, or that History will place him in a perspective that we simply can't have this close to the events as they happen... I really don't think that his supporters are really and truely personally invested in him.

I got ripped up one side and down the other once because I said in an online forum "I know that it's not a rational reaction, but Hillary Clinton gives me the heebie-geebies." You'd think I'd insulted the Virgin Mary, I kid you not. (Though I think people are less worshipful about Hillary these days.)

Bush supporters get defensive with all the bushitler stuff, but who wouldn't? It's a matter of fair play.

A deeply held conservative christian (protestant?) belief is that it's wrong to be "a respecter of persons." (That's one reason Bush's down home demeanor goes over so well.) And while like all sinners we fail more often than not there is still an element of distaste associated with unseemly adolation. It's called a personality cult, after all.

[Steve]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/
f-news/1492381/posts#comment?q=1

An article from The New Republic:

BILL CLINTON, MESSIAH. Second Coming
New Republic ^ | 9/27/05 | Michael Crowley

It was almost midnight at the Manhattan sushi hotspot Nobu Fifty Seven, and Bill Clinton was briefing Elvis Costello on the future of New Orleans. "First you've got to flush the lake. Just flush it," Clinton explained. Between the low thrum of club music and the starstruck admirers jockeying for position, it was impossible to hear much more, but one thing was clear: Clinton was really enjoying himself. As several celebrities--including Jeremy Piven of HBO's "Entourage," millionaire playboy Steve Bing, and the dapper Nobu himself--hovered on the margins, Clinton talked on ... and on ... and on. A few minutes earlier, Costello had looked starstruck himself. But now, his enthusiasm seemed to be waning. In fact, as Clinton droned on, I detected a certain glaze forming behind the smartly dressed rocker's famous black-rimmed glasses.

If Clinton noticed, he didn't care. These are the moments he lives for. This was the first evening of the Clinton Global Initiative--a sprawling three-day extravaganza that was equal parts Davos, Renaissance Weekend, charitable telethon, and self-celebration. The stated purpose of the conference was to bring together top thinkers and leaders from public and private life to help devise solutions to intractable world problems. But, most of all, this was the Bill Clinton show--a chance for the ex-president to talk an endless number of hapless (though often rich and famous) souls like Costello blue in the face...."

further on down in the FreeRepublic link someone gave the rest of the article:

"...Clinton's pathological need for adulation is well-documented. (When a friend of mine--who is not famous and had never spoken with Clinton before--ran into the ex-president at a hotel gym recently, he had to fabricate an excuse to escape his long-winded ruminations.) But, in New York last week, Clinton was after something more.
-----------------------
It goes on further but you can link to it and read it.
-----------------------
I went in to the Clinton Global Summit site when it was up and I read an article given in that site about a trip the reporter for that story took with Bill Clinton to Africa. It described in detail what he wore at various times and all the adulation that he got from women there. I really do not think--and especially in Bill's case--that is a very good omen. That is also including that Katie Couric type adulation that even the male news anchors give him. Bill is not worth or worthy of it.

[Justin]

Steve--Powerline ("some guy named John") was named Time magazines blog of the year and is probably one of the most prominent conservative blogs--it's hardly obscure. Do you want me to pull some fawning articles from Peggy Noonan (who seems to have turned on him a bit)? This isn't a blast on Bush, to be a two term president you need a bit of the cult of personality.

And Steve--if so many liberals support Ward Churchill, why can't I find one article written by a mainstream liberal supporting him? Why is there only one mention of him in any newspaper in the US before January of this year?

Synova--the "cult of personality" thing is very hard to assess--people that don't like Bush (like me) seem to think so, while people who admire Bush believe it is because of his policies. The same holds true for Clinton.

And Steve--I gave the names of a few local NY groups protesting the war who I know are not crazy, and you spend pages talking about a group I didn't reference as not being crazy (I did give the link to their page, which has links to some of the groups I mentioned). Do you honestly believe that EVERY group protesting the war is communist/anti American or whatever???? That in itself is a bit crazy.

I've seen the discover the network site before, and it's actually kind of funny--trying to show some nefarious left wing network when it's all pretty banal. The site would make Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky blush. That being said, it is a decent source for information on far left groups, even if they do try to knock down one of my heroes, George Soros (let the flames fly Steve!)

[Steve]

Again, about Ward Churchill, I may go out and find the kinds of organizations that support him and then find the organizations very closely affiliated with that organization. But your missing my point still. The point is that in my estimation of "liberals" Ward Churchill would poll favorably from a pretty good slice of people calling themselves "liberal" in this country. That is, the people themselves, not this or that "liberal" organization or publication (not that there aren't some of those as well).

I've seached on Proquest for Ward Churchill months ago and his name appeared regarding a United Nations Conference in August of 2000 concerning the Native peoples of the world.
-----
And "John" on Powerline is also not what we are talking about when it comes to either communists and Islamists use of their leader's portraits on building sized banners or carrying of posters the size of a doorway. And articles like Peggy Noonan's do not match what I am talking about either. Her types of articles could be found for any leader of any country going back to the time we have had presses. I am talking about behaviors that are out of the ordinary.

Like I said earlier that these are things some people see and some people don't. Some people who do not see these things may never be able to see them and half of those are really lying to others, and themselves. When someone is even lying to themself it makes things futile but these types display a predictable pattern of aurgument and defensiveness that gives them away. Whether they are likable or not it does limit conversation.

Soros:
http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=137

[Justin]

Steve--name ONE liberal that supported Ward. Stop trying to tarnish liberals with that kook. It's like me saying "I would guess that 10-20% of conservatives think that 9/11 was God's punishment for homosexuality".

Steve--the cult of personality thing is useless to argue, because no piece of evidence that I could present would convince you otherwise (and the same for me). But let me be clear what I'm speaking about when I refer to "cult of personality" in the US--it's when people will support a candidate just based on the person' personality, completely aside from policy, and will defend that person irrationally. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean were the "cult of personality" candidates for the democrats. John Kerry wasn't. Bill Clinton is a "cult of personality" person. So is George Bush. Since we are not North Korea, we are never going to have the cult to the same level, but we do have it.

And, I'm glad Soros is having an influence on US politics--because he is so powerful, that influence should be questioned and watched closely, but I like Soros and what he stands for.

[Steve]

George Bush does not qualify for "cult of personality" status. But you have admitted that Bill Clinton does, so maybe we are getting somewhere.

George Soros is an international organized crime/organized labor figure and not someone to be looked up to. He is one of many feral billionaires like Ted Turner or Marc Rich. He is Kofi Annan's Chief of Staff's landlord. He is not someone who believes in this country's soverienty and he makes that plain. His whole purpose is to enforce some world regime from an absolutely ridiculous organization like the United Nations.

He is tainted with all the things that you took issue with V the K about:

1: anti-Americanism. Too easy to see to comment on.

2: anti-Semitism. His best critics are Jewish although he claims to be a victim of anti-semitism.

3: collectivism. United Nations to him should be the focal point of an enforced Amsterdam-like libertarianism, euthanasia, pot, drugs, prostitution, etc etc.. And of course with that heavy and effete moronic political correctness that has diseased many countries. A United Nations tax and so on.

4: conspiracy-theory nuts. MoveOn.org, Michael Moore-Disney, types and their belief that George Bush is full of every sinister motive possible including possibly being in on 911. By the way, George Soros one of the founders of the Carlyle Group and that company is more heavily invested in by those in this country sitting to the left of the isle. That second point is according to I believe it was Mayor Koch, or Dick Morris, in the show Farenhype 911 with Ron Silver.

5: Pot headery. George Soros wants to legalize marijuana and I've read that he may be capable of providing the industry size demand. I believe these pro-pot groups have been receipients of his donations.

[Justin]

Steve--you crack me up sometimes.

1. Anti Americanism? I notice you are unable to provide support.

2. A jew whose family fled the nazis is anti-semitic? OK

3. Collectivism--Your point makes no sense. So he is pushing prostitution AND political correctness. Or is the UN pushing prostitution. Do you even know what the UN does? Apparently not.

4. This point makes no sense either. When did MoveOne say Bush was in on 9/11 again? The Carlyle Group?--you've been reading too much Michael Moore.

5. Good, I think pot should be legal. Oh, and you've "read that he may be capable of providing the industry size demand". OK, so Soros is a drug dealer too. Where exactly is he getting his supply?

Are you the same Steve that usually has real arguments with real sources, because your points are kind of pathetic here.

[Ed]

Re: some folks will show up for anything. Here in the bay area, I have called them the rent- a mob for thirty years or more. Honestly, one could get 300 or so to protest against clean air. When I see the news media say "thousands" and restrict the camera angle to show forty or fifty faces, I think its just another day in SF.

[Steve]

Steve--you crack me up sometimes.

1. Anti Americanism? I notice you are unable to provide support.

He has bought the democratic party and one of his operatives claims sole responsibilty for Howard Dean being the DNC chair. Like I've said before to you, the space here, and my time, do not allow me to take you through everything. But I think you can tell by our previous experiences that I am capable of it.

2. A jew whose family fled the nazis is anti-semitic? OK

You misunderstood what I wrote. He, Soros, is the one who has accused his critics of anti-semitism (not the other way around). But his best critics have been Jewish.

3. Collectivism--Your point makes no sense. So he is pushing prostitution AND political correctness. Or is the UN pushing prostitution. Do you even know what the UN does? Apparently not.

Excuse me? Excuse me? Do you even know what the U.N. has actually done instead. Good grief. Baldilocks could give you a little lesson here.

4. This point makes no sense either. When did MoveOne say Bush was in on 9/11 again? The Carlyle Group?--you've been reading too much Michael Moore.

No, Michael Moore, and his political followers, have made what amounts to an accusation that George Bush was in on or knew of 911. It has been pointed out, and I've looked it up, the it is George Soros that started the Carlyle Group with 100 million in seed money in the late 80s. Thats all. There is no intrinsic big deal to me in all of that. It is rather to balance out the perspective of this corporation to those, possibly like yourself, that have gotten some of your views from Moore-like sources such as your mentioning Farenheit 911 a couple of days ago. But in addition, it was mentioned in the Farenhype 911 movie that democrats are more heavily invested in that corporation. But do not get me wrong here. I do not neccessarily find that incriminating. I mentioned it because after the democrats, who took leave of their seats in the House of Representatives to go see that movie in July of 2003, I thought that it would be worth mentioning since it is the movie that makes such an incriminating guilt by association with that Soros/Democrat corporation.

5. Good, I think pot should be legal. Oh, and you've "read that he may be capable of providing the industry size demand". OK, so Soros is a drug dealer too. Where exactly is he getting his supply?

George Soros has, by some estimates, 7 Billion dollars and, from what I've read, it is not all that clear as to how he has made all that money. He operates on the Dutch Island of Curacao off the coast of Venezuela. That Island has been known for a long time to be overun with drugs. Amsterdam being Dutch and along with some other things, as well as his support for the legalize pot crowd, the lite insinuation I once read seems also plausable to me. But you should see then that what I said was correct that he fits what V the K mentioned concerning the pot head crowd. I've seen the political pot crowd and it is not good that adults of voting age know and invest so much of their time in this short sighted, selfish, subject that leaves them unable to assess anything independently of their concern for this one subject.

[Tantor]

Just to clarify, ANSWER has organized ALL the antiwar rallies in Washington, DC since Sep 11. ALL OF THEM.

ANSWER is a front organization for the Worker's World Party, a Stalinist group, whose cadre was formed from refugees from the Communist Party of the USA. Their money probably comes from North Korea.

Here's how it works: A handful of people at ANSWER decide what the demonstration is going to be about and when and where. They put it out to their administrative council in such a way that they all think its their own idea. They begin the organization.

Once the plan is set, they partner with more mainstream liberal groups to get bodies to flesh out the demonstration and to provide cover. Very often, ANSWER will pose as a junior partner to some mainstream liberal organization that wants to be seen.

ANSWER brings the organizational talent. Most liberal groups could not organize a picnic without screwing it up.

ANSWER, of course, wants to overthrow the US to install a socialist government. It picks protest themes like Afghanistan and Iraq where it shares positions with liberal groups that are pro-democratic. It then manipulates those naive liberal groups like puppets to drive its anti-American theme home.

The liberal groups are, in commie lingo, useful idiots.

Tantor

[David Foster]

If the Israel-haters are a fringe, not representative of the whole movement, then why are so many "mainstream" (read liberal) churches passing anti-Israel resolutions?

[Justin]

Steve:

1. So influencing the DNC's decision to make Dean the chair is your example of anti-American activity? That's a pretty pathetic example. What's your next example, trying to buy a baseball team?

2. Sorry, I misread your anti-semitism point.

3. I still don't follow how the "enforced Amsterdam-like libertarianism, euthanasia, pot, drugs, prostitution, etc etc." point--it really makes absolutely no sense to me, please explain.

4. I still don't get point 4. When did Soros blame Bush for 9/11. And I'm not sure why you bring the Carlyle Group up--I've done work for them and I know them well. They do have a lot of liberals in top postitions and a lot of liberal investors. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

5. So, Soros has a lot of money and your not sure where all of it came from, therefore it must be drugs because he wants pot legalized? I read the same thing about that you did, I don't remember where, but it is stupid and irresponsible thing to say. There is no evidence that Soros deals drugs, so either back up your claim or stop making it.

[Steve]

Steve:

1. Justin said:So influencing the DNC's decision to make Dean the chair is your example of anti-American activity? That's a pretty pathetic example. What's your next example, trying to buy a baseball team?

No Justin, it is the way that George Soros has arranged for his take over of the Democratic Party since at least 1994. This, as well as his connections to Harold Ickes, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. It is a bit of a long story and I'll admit I haven't spent a lot of time on it because I have many many other interests. Like I keep saying, there is not enough room on this website, but is it that you want me to tutor you across this website?

If I think George Soros is un-American (V the K's #1 in the list posted) then that is my assesment to make and I still stand by it. If you want me to continue further I will. I am guessing eventually we will be in some later thread at least.
--------------
2. Justin said: Sorry, I misread your anti-semitism point.

Ok, accepted.
I am not Jewish but I do have some, a little (I never know what people take "some" or "little" to mean over the Internet, to some it may be considered a lot), understanding of Israel and the problems they face. I believe that some pro-Israel people, including some Jewish people, are critizing George Soros for funding groups that are ultimately connected, or sympathetic too, Islamic/Palestinian groups. Also, George Soros' affiliation with the U.N. probably causes his behavior that contributes to this criticsm. And I would also suppose the fact that many of his causes are not actually democratic, or peaceful, in their means or goals (radical like Code Pink and worse). That may also include the heavy handed, and non-democratic way, in which many Unions treat heir membership.
-----------------------
3. Justin said: I still don't follow how the "enforced Amsterdam-like libertarianism, euthanasia, pot, drugs, prostitution, etc etc." point--it really makes absolutely no sense to me, please explain.

From what I understand of him is that he is basically an extreme libertarian. I would be careful of a lot of groups that have "liber" as the first 5 letters of their name, it seldom means what you might at first think. Just a little advice. He is also a advocate of the ICC and he, I've got to say it, seemed very upset over the war in Iraq in that U.N.-ophile way. He appears to have his heart U.N. centered but I think there could be other pivot points for the reasons for his decisions and those may be not in the U.S. (for the U.S.) but overseas.
-----------
4. Justin said: "I still don't get point 4. When did Soros blame Bush for 9/11. And I'm not sure why you bring the Carlyle Group up--I've done work for them and I know them well. They do have a lot of liberals in top postitions and a lot of liberal investors. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything."

Point four originated as "Point 4" with my reference to V the K's post under "conspiracy theory nuts". The conspriracy theory that the Soros funded moveon.org people have been implying. As well as many other Soros funded radical groups. But it is important to understand that I am not talking about something that is my conspiracy theory concerning the Carlyle Group. Let me emphasize, not my conspiracy theory concerning the Carlyle Group.

The conspiracy theory as implied by Michael Moore and his followers and its reference in Michael Moore's (that would be Michael Moore's) film called Fahrenhiet 911. Not mine, but his. Michael Moore, who sat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democrat National Convention not long after the democrats in the House of Representatives went to see his theory (his theory) concerning the Carlyle Group at the showing of his movie Fahrenheit 911.

I am the one defending the position of there being no reason for conspiracy. I am pointing those things out as a counter to their conspiracy. I am not alone in this because I am repeating this information as I had received it from the movie that made this counter claim to Michael Moore's conspiracy. Not that compicated and only a natural thing to point out as a counter to any conspiracy claims, just as you've done in your lifetime I am sure.
--------

5. Justin saidL So, Soros has a lot of money and your not sure where all of it came from, therefore it must be drugs because he wants pot legalized? I read the same thing about that you did, I don't remember where, but it is stupid and irresponsible thing to say. There is no evidence that Soros deals drugs, so either back up your claim or stop making it.

I am not saying that it "must" be drugs. I also understand that any one with 7 billion dollars probably cannot help but have many many things going on that are not under his control that may involve that person's money.

But I am entitled to a little curiousity considering all that happened to Officer Dennis Sculimbrene while serving during the Clinton administration. As well as Jorge Cabrera's arrest in January of 1997 as well as other things concerning Arthur Coia and that whole scene. I'll try to find the Internet article that mentioned it only in passing and as just a possibilty, or a little theory. It was an off-hand remark in the article and wasn't dwelled on so maybe I should not have used it.

I hate to be suspicious but at the sametime I've kind of come to know enough to not be naive either.

But because I believe he has supported monetarily the legalization of marijuana and, from what I gather, a kind of "libertarian" view much like Amsterdam's laws concerning drugs, among other things, he does come under V the K's original post and as a basis for this post, in my opinion.

I will retract the idea, or implication, that he deals in drugs, or is set and ready to someday, as the article I once read 2 years ago had slightly implied.

[Steve]

Justin:

I think you need to do a little more investigating of several things we've covered here so that I do not have to start from square one with you all the time.

I guess I am having a hard time visualizing just who I am talking to here. I sometimes get the picture that you've been around the block a few times and then I get the feeling that you may be a little naive about the world.

At one point you seem to take yourself to be the worldly and properly cynical. The one that has been around. The next minute you strike me as posing as the innocent that sees it all quite plain and simple and to be untainted from the sin of suspicion (like your U.N. comment above and other things).

Then again you seem to imply that I am the one that has unwarranted cynicism, or suspicions.

And then at other times I am made out by you to be the innocent and gullable in a dog eat dog world.

I realize that a lot of this has to do with a writing/debating technique that I've seen at other websites where you use the impression of having delicate intellectual sensibilies that someone else keeps offending.

[Justin]

I guess I am having a hard time visualizing just who I am talking to here. I sometimes get the picture that you've been around the block a few times and then I get the feeling that you may be a little naive about the world.

At one point you seem to take yourself to be the worldly and properly cynical. The one that has been around. The next minute you strike me as posing as the innocent that sees it all quite plain and simple and to be untainted from the sin of suspicion (like your U.N. comment above and other things).

I think the explanation for the confusion if a combination of poor writing on my part and the fact that I work very late and post on little sleep (for example, I think my last post last night was at 2 AM, going on my 2nd all-nighter at work), so I tend to dash off ideas that sound more extreme than my actual position.

As for the UN comments, I really don't understand what you are getting at. That the UN is corrupt and has human rights abusers sitting on human rights committees etc.? I know that. But, I think it in our national interest to work through the UN when possible.

I don't have delicate sensibilities, and I apologize if I gave that impression--my weakness is that I like to argue and debate, sometimes for its own sake.

[baldilocks]

my weakness is that I like to argue and debate, sometimes for its own sake.

You're in the right place, Justin. :-)

[Steve]

I understand about coming home late and posting while tired. It is very hard to organize thoughts and put them in writing. And it is also hard at that time to remember all the various points one has learned in the past and how to use them in one's post. For me it is also hard to remember after 1:00am how to spell some of the simplest words. I am also just returning this year to trying to write my thoughts down after having about 16 years off. I am better than I was 10 months ago. I did spend a lot of time reading and while reading I never understood how difficult it is to put together on paper a coherent article. I can now appreciate that after having tried to type in messages of only 300 words.

[teal marie]

Steve:
Scuse me for butting in, but is "sophomoric" the word you were looking for earlier? ;-)

[justin]

Teal--are they letting you post from North Korea?

[torchy]

Justin- Is your Mom is still letting you post from her basement? Your 5 days past niggling, with a weeks old jab, is just pathetic, and a tad neurotic. And come to think of it, you proved Miss Maries last comment splendidly, and with brevity, keep up the good work, knucklehead.

Sophomoric: Adjective. Exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment.

[justin]

Torchy--I never claimed to be quick.

Maybe if Teal actually made an argument once in a while I'd take her seriously.

[torchy]

You just(in) don't get it, you just(in) can't let it go, be my guest, have the last word, I give up. Here's a clue, blogs aren't all about arguments, no matter how much you want to fight, they're also about making genuine observations. I've learned more from Miss Maries brief observations that I ever have from reams of your tired arguments. It's not about your timing, it's about your attitude and society.