The Shame of the Media

No one was the "dupe" of anyone. The Soviet Union was an incredibly secretive place..and couple that with the yellow dog journalism from only a couple of decades prior to this story and it might become clear why reporting may not of been as accurate as it was..

And the Khmer Rouge rose as a RESULT of America's actions in the region. Nixon, initially, albeit briefly, supported them as a foil to the NVA. And it was the NVA that ultimately got rid of them.

PC of course ignores all context and goes on to indict that which she hates.

Wrong, again, Toothy.

But, I like you so I'll provide the instruction you so dearly need.
Much of the following from Paul Kangor's aptly named tome, "Dupes." What could be better for your instruction???

1. In the early years after the Bolshevik Revolution, the communists used manipulations, such as the Potemkin Villages, to pursued the world how admirable and successful the revolution had been. One technique was to invite prominent American and British leftists to take carefully planned tours. And these ‘Potemkin Progressives,’ for the most part, behaved and thought just as they were meant to. Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t recognize the Bolshevik regime, nor would the contemporary British government (Churchill had famously told Lloyd George, ‘You might a well legalize sodomy…’)

a. Toothy says "No one was the "dupe" of anyone." But the truth is that Lenin, and then Stalin, carefully arranged the tours so that these progressives would then go back to their countries and praise Soviet Russia, and have the citizens demand that Russia be recognized. See, that's what 'dupes' means.

2. H.G. Wells met with Stalin in 1934, and wrote “I’ve never met a man more candid, fair and honest!” and “…everyone trusts him!’ And of Lenin, “…frank, refreshing, and an amazing little man!’ Of course, 1934 was the start of the Great Purge, “Sergey Kirov's murder in 1934 was used by Stalin as a pretext to launch the Great Purge, in which about a million people perished. Some later historians came to believe that Stalin himself arranged the murder, or at least that there was sufficient evidence to reach such a conclusion.” Conquest, Robert, “Stalin and the Kirov Murder”, p. 122-138.

3. Another 'dupe,' Toothy? George Bernard Shaw met with Stalin, as well. He returned, and wrote, “ We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbors, the Soviet Union, humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men.” Now, lest one thinks this was said sarcastically, Lady Aster and others who were present, and took notes, from the meeting, wrote that that was exactly and precisely what Stalin had said. He parroted the exact line that Stalin had given him!

a. When he returned from the Soviet Union, Shaw backed up ever lie that Walter Duranty reported. He testified that there was not, and never could be, a food shortage in the USSR. Paul Hollander, “Political Pilgrims,” p.119

b. Don't forget the dupes Duranty, Salisbury, Anthony Lewis, all wrote in the dupe-journal, the NYTimes.

And, of course, there's you!

4. "And the Khmer Rouge rose as a RESULT of America's actions in the region."
Now, I commend you re: Nixon and the North Vietnamese, I'll bet few on the board even know that much....but you couldn't be more ignorant about the origins of the Khmer Rouge!

The actuality is that it was North Vietnam that widened the war, not the United States. It was before 1965 that Hanoi created the Khmer Rouge (as early as WWII) and the Pathet Lao (mid ‘50’s) with the goal of conquering all of Indochina for communism.
Care to bet on this one?

a. In “Sideshow,” William Shawcross claims that the 1970 bombings caused the coup in which Prince Sihanouk was by Lon Nol. But this adumbrates the issues, as Sihanouk attempted to be too clever, allowing the Vietnamese to invade his country, and then telling Kissinger he could bomb them.

b. The North Vietnamese were getting support from the Soviet Union and China, determined to support wars of “national liberation.”

c. In 1994, Shawcross acknowledged his error: “Those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times...,I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions.” William Shawcross - writer and broadcaster, UK : official personal website


Do the honorable thing and admit you were wrong....or, put your bushy tail between your legs and slink away.

Not hardly.

Cherry picking through events without proper context may be all the rage in Conservative circles..but it t'aint flying in the real world.

Stalin was amazingly secretive...and quite good at it. That's how he came to power. Through the military and security. I guess you missed the whole power struggle between him and Trotsky..and Trotsky's eventual assassination. Add in that the US was dead tired of interfering in the world..and the dismal conditions brought on by feckless "free market" corporatism made this nation ripe for communism..or fascism..since a large part of the population was suffering. Had we not had a President like FDR things might have been terribly different..thanks to conservatives.

Eisenhower admitted the Mihn would have won a general election..fair and square. And AGAIN..for the cheap seats. It was the VIETNAMESE that got rid of the Khmer Rouge.
 
Some eyewitnesses claim that Stalin opened his eyes on his deathbed after he was declared officially dead.

Never understood The Lefts affinity for genocidal commie dictators - Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro - list goes on and on.........................

As opposed to Right's support for brutal dictators, like

Pinochet
Suharto
Videla
Stroessner
Somoza
The Shah
Trujillo
Various generals in Guatemala
Noriega
The House of Saud


etc.
Taking that list at face value -a stretch at best- all of those despotic miscreants rolled into one don't add up to either Stalin or Mao as a stand-alone.

Also, the support for those tyrants didn't come exclusively from the right.
 
Some eyewitnesses claim that Stalin opened his eyes on his deathbed after he was declared officially dead.

Never understood The Lefts affinity for genocidal commie dictators - Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro - list goes on and on.........................

Stalin was in the miltary and studying to become a Christian priest at some point, right?
 
Some eyewitnesses claim that Stalin opened his eyes on his deathbed after he was declared officially dead.

Never understood The Lefts affinity for genocidal commie dictators - Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro - list goes on and on.........................

As opposed to Right's support for brutal dictators, like

Pinochet
Suharto
Videla
Stroessner
Somoza
The Shah
Trujillo
Various generals in Guatemala
Noriega
The House of Saud


etc.
Taking that list at face value -a stretch at best- all of those despotic miscreants rolled into one don't add up to either Stalin or Mao as a stand-alone.

So?
 
Alexander S - who wrote the Gulag Archipeligo - was a prisonor of both the Gestapo and the NKVD (forerunner of the KGB)

said he preferred the Gestapo - because they were mainly interested in getting the facts.........not forced confessions...............................
 
No one was the "dupe" of anyone. The Soviet Union was an incredibly secretive place..and couple that with the yellow dog journalism from only a couple of decades prior to this story and it might become clear why reporting may not of been as accurate as it was..

And the Khmer Rouge rose as a RESULT of America's actions in the region. Nixon, initially, albeit briefly, supported them as a foil to the NVA. And it was the NVA that ultimately got rid of them.

PC of course ignores all context and goes on to indict that which she hates.

Wrong, again, Toothy.

But, I like you so I'll provide the instruction you so dearly need.
Much of the following from Paul Kangor's aptly named tome, "Dupes." What could be better for your instruction???

1. In the early years after the Bolshevik Revolution, the communists used manipulations, such as the Potemkin Villages, to pursued the world how admirable and successful the revolution had been. One technique was to invite prominent American and British leftists to take carefully planned tours. And these ‘Potemkin Progressives,’ for the most part, behaved and thought just as they were meant to. Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t recognize the Bolshevik regime, nor would the contemporary British government (Churchill had famously told Lloyd George, ‘You might a well legalize sodomy…’)

a. Toothy says "No one was the "dupe" of anyone." But the truth is that Lenin, and then Stalin, carefully arranged the tours so that these progressives would then go back to their countries and praise Soviet Russia, and have the citizens demand that Russia be recognized. See, that's what 'dupes' means.

2. H.G. Wells met with Stalin in 1934, and wrote “I’ve never met a man more candid, fair and honest!” and “…everyone trusts him!’ And of Lenin, “…frank, refreshing, and an amazing little man!’ Of course, 1934 was the start of the Great Purge, “Sergey Kirov's murder in 1934 was used by Stalin as a pretext to launch the Great Purge, in which about a million people perished. Some later historians came to believe that Stalin himself arranged the murder, or at least that there was sufficient evidence to reach such a conclusion.” Conquest, Robert, “Stalin and the Kirov Murder”, p. 122-138.

3. Another 'dupe,' Toothy? George Bernard Shaw met with Stalin, as well. He returned, and wrote, “ We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbors, the Soviet Union, humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men.” Now, lest one thinks this was said sarcastically, Lady Aster and others who were present, and took notes, from the meeting, wrote that that was exactly and precisely what Stalin had said. He parroted the exact line that Stalin had given him!

a. When he returned from the Soviet Union, Shaw backed up ever lie that Walter Duranty reported. He testified that there was not, and never could be, a food shortage in the USSR. Paul Hollander, “Political Pilgrims,” p.119

b. Don't forget the dupes Duranty, Salisbury, Anthony Lewis, all wrote in the dupe-journal, the NYTimes.

And, of course, there's you!

4. "And the Khmer Rouge rose as a RESULT of America's actions in the region."
Now, I commend you re: Nixon and the North Vietnamese, I'll bet few on the board even know that much....but you couldn't be more ignorant about the origins of the Khmer Rouge!

The actuality is that it was North Vietnam that widened the war, not the United States. It was before 1965 that Hanoi created the Khmer Rouge (as early as WWII) and the Pathet Lao (mid ‘50’s) with the goal of conquering all of Indochina for communism.
Care to bet on this one?

a. In “Sideshow,” William Shawcross claims that the 1970 bombings caused the coup in which Prince Sihanouk was by Lon Nol. But this adumbrates the issues, as Sihanouk attempted to be too clever, allowing the Vietnamese to invade his country, and then telling Kissinger he could bomb them.

b. The North Vietnamese were getting support from the Soviet Union and China, determined to support wars of “national liberation.”

c. In 1994, Shawcross acknowledged his error: “Those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times...,I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions.” William Shawcross - writer and broadcaster, UK : official personal website


Do the honorable thing and admit you were wrong....or, put your bushy tail between your legs and slink away.

Not hardly.

Cherry picking through events without proper context may be all the rage in Conservative circles..but it t'aint flying in the real world.

Stalin was amazingly secretive...and quite good at it. That's how he came to power. Through the military and security. I guess you missed the whole power struggle between him and Trotsky..and Trotsky's eventual assassination. Add in that the US was dead tired of interfering in the world..and the dismal conditions brought on by feckless "free market" corporatism made this nation ripe for communism..or fascism..since a large part of the population was suffering. Had we not had a President like FDR things might have been terribly different..thanks to conservatives.

Eisenhower admitted the Mihn would have won a general election..fair and square. And AGAIN..for the cheap seats. It was the VIETNAMESE that got rid of the Khmer Rouge.

1. I love when I pin you guys up against the wall with facts and data, you use some empty blather, and walk off as though you make a point....

I notice you didn't take me up on the offer to bet:
"The actuality is that it was North Vietnam that widened the war, not the United States. It was before 1965 that Hanoi created the Khmer Rouge (as early as WWII) and the Pathet Lao (mid ‘50’s) with the goal of conquering all of Indochina for communism.
Care to bet on this one?"

So you're admitting that you and the rest of the 'blame America first' brigade are absolutely, positively and without doubt wrong and slandered this nation out of ignorance? Or out of hate...which is it?


2. "...it t'aint flying in the real world."
By 'real world' you certainly mean to retreat to the echo chamber of liberal MSM and University gobbley-gook.
Notice how I use scholarship and documentation and you, the truly anti-intellectuals, simply repeat what has just been proven to be irrelevant nonsense:
"Stalin was amazingly secretive...blah, blah, blah..."

And, another of your fact-filled arguments: "...the whole power struggle between ..."


"..."free market" corporatism made this nation ripe for communism...."
No, it's because you are so easy to manipulate...and you roll in ignorance the way a pig does in mud. As our little debate has shown.


3. I must admit, Sally, I love disagreements with you because, in comparison, you make me look so smart.
Thanks again, and write soon.
 
Some eyewitnesses claim that Stalin opened his eyes on his deathbed after he was declared officially dead.

Never understood The Lefts affinity for genocidal commie dictators - Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro - list goes on and on.........................

As opposed to Right's support for brutal dictators, like

Pinochet
Suharto
Videla
Stroessner
Somoza
The Shah
Trujillo
Various generals in Guatemala
Noriega
The House of Saud


etc.

I'm kinda busy this morn, but let me take just one of your 'Terrible Ten'..

The Shah was supported by all the American adminstrastions, and was liberalizing- if I may use that term in its original meaning, the conditions for the Persian people...

And then along came the dolt Jimmy Carter who bought every lie of Khomeini like it was on sale....
and the libs threw out the Shah for Khomeini, giving the world the greatest threat we have today: AminamoodforJihah.

For your edification:

Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.
1. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

a. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.

2. Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

a. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”

b. The first constitution that was written was democratic! Khomeini flew to Iran in February, ’79. Within weeks he began to marginalize democracy forces. Soon a new constitution was written with the rule of the guardians at its center. November 4, of ’79 was the attack on the US embassy and taking of the hostages for 444 days.

c. The Islamic Revolution, so-called, was originally about the desire for political freedom. The Shah had given Iranians economic freedom via the White Revolution of 1963, and this was the groundwork for the unrest of ’78. How ironic is it that in 1978, Jews, Christians, and even Baha’is could, generally, live their private lives pretty much as they wished. In 1975 there were 150,000 Jews in Iran…even today there are about 20,000, which is more than the other Muslim countries combined. The Shah had mistakenly believed that giving his people this economic prosperity would give them reason to forego political freedom


. When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire. Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108
 
Such a large pile of bullshit you need 2 trucks to haul it away.

I get such a kick out of the empty posts from folks like you when you have no counter.

Sorry, stupidity is not a handicap. You can't park in those spots.

There is no counter to horse shit you just hold your nose and sweep it up.

So, your expertise is in the realm of barnyard effluvia! I should have guessed.

You probably don't realize it, but in your two or three posts, you have contributed less than zero to the sum of human knowledge.

If fact, the best contribution you have made is in allowing those who know, - myself included in that group- to educate the one hundred plus readers of this thread.

Bravo!
You actually serve a purpose, beyond being a source of Soylent Green!



BTW, Captain America is one of my favs....you probably don't realize the humor you provide in having an avatar so clearly antithetical to your person.
Do you?

Oh...now I see....you're the personification of an April Fool's joke!
 
I get such a kick out of the empty posts from folks like you when you have no counter.

Sorry, stupidity is not a handicap. You can't park in those spots.

There is no counter to horse shit you just hold your nose and sweep it up.

So, your expertise is in the realm of barnyard effluvia! I should have guessed.

You probably don't realize it, but in your two or three posts, you have contributed less than zero to the sum of human knowledge.

If fact, the best contribution you have made is in allowing those who know, - myself included in that group- to educate the one hundred plus readers of this thread.

Bravo!
You actually serve a purpose, beyond being a source of Soylent Green!



BTW, Captain America is one of my favs....you probably don't realize the humor you provide in having an avatar so clearly antithetical to your person.
Do you?

Oh...now I see....you're the personification of an April Fool's joke!


You obviously do not read Captain America comics, he is as liberal as they get, but I would expect a chickenhawk cheer leader not to understand the essence of the character.
 
There is no counter to horse shit you just hold your nose and sweep it up.

So, your expertise is in the realm of barnyard effluvia! I should have guessed.

You probably don't realize it, but in your two or three posts, you have contributed less than zero to the sum of human knowledge.

If fact, the best contribution you have made is in allowing those who know, - myself included in that group- to educate the one hundred plus readers of this thread.

Bravo!
You actually serve a purpose, beyond being a source of Soylent Green!



BTW, Captain America is one of my favs....you probably don't realize the humor you provide in having an avatar so clearly antithetical to your person.
Do you?

Oh...now I see....you're the personification of an April Fool's joke!


You obviously do not read Captain America comics, he is as liberal as they get, but I would expect a chickenhawk cheer leader not to understand the essence of the character.

You're right, I don't read comic books.

So, April Fool, when do you provide some support for your position- which seems to be that you disagree with any of my posts?

Aren't you embarrassed when you look at how anemic and insipid your posts have been, basically "Is not, is not...."

Put a little effort into it!
 
As opposed to Right's support for brutal dictators, like

Pinochet
Suharto
Videla
Stroessner
Somoza
The Shah
Trujillo
Various generals in Guatemala
Noriega
The House of Saud


etc.
Taking that list at face value -a stretch at best- all of those despotic miscreants rolled into one don't add up to either Stalin or Mao as a stand-alone.

So?

I'll answer if you don't mind T, with my original blurb-

anyway, whats the over and under on the deaths and/or general welfare we ignore assist or not?
 
As opposed to Right's support for brutal dictators, like

Pinochet
Suharto
Videla
Stroessner
Somoza
The Shah
Trujillo
Various generals in Guatemala
Noriega
The House of Saud


etc.
Taking that list at face value -a stretch at best- all of those despotic miscreants rolled into one don't add up to either Stalin or Mao as a stand-alone.

So?
You dropped something.

Oddball said:
Also, the support for those tyrants didn't come exclusively from the right.
 
1. On this very day, March 31, 1931 Walter Duranty reported in the NYTimes “there is no famine (in the Ukraine),” while 7 –10 million were starved to death.
In his New York Times articles (including one published on March 31, 1933), Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932–33. In an August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932.

And, the reporting of this dupe of Joseph Stalin reverberated in the West, where thousands of liberal-progressives bought it like it was on sale, and supported the 'worker's paradise.'

2. Of course, this is but one of the many times the MSM, particularly the NYTimes influenced widespread support of Left-Wing interests.
There was the time the NYTimes’ Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian population. But Guenter Lewy, in “America in Vietnam,” revealed that “Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reporting…borrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, “Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City…” Lewy,"America in Vietnam," p. 400-401

3. And when warned of the bloodbath that Communist victory in Cambodia would bring, here is the type of MSM reporting that sways so many:
NYTimes Anthony Lewis: “Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening in Cambodia now?” Anthony Lewis in the New York Times, March 17, 1975.

What future possibility?
Here is what happened:
Starting in April ’75, the Communist Khmer Rouge defeated Lon Nol in Cambodia. Democrats, starting with the 1974 budget, refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action “in or over” Indochina. Just as the right had warned, the communists began a systematic war on the entire populations of their nation, so savage, it is hard to comprehend. It is estimated that the number of dead numbered between 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million. The Killing Fields - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Too bad there was no Fox News or right-wing talk radio, eh?

another alumnus of the vaunted NY Times....Herbert Matthews;)

Oh, my gosh! It just clicked for me! Yes, Herbert Matthews....

If there had been an internet in 1957-1959, Herbert Matthews and the NYTimes would not have been able to claim that Fidel Castro was the new George Washington.


I tried to send a rep, Traj, but it wouldn't let me.
 
1. On this very day, March 31, 1931 Walter Duranty reported in the NYTimes “there is no famine (in the Ukraine),” while 7 –10 million were starved to death.
In his New York Times articles (including one published on March 31, 1933), Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932–33. In an August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932.

And, the reporting of this dupe of Joseph Stalin reverberated in the West, where thousands of liberal-progressives bought it like it was on sale, and supported the 'worker's paradise.'

2. Of course, this is but one of the many times the MSM, particularly the NYTimes influenced widespread support of Left-Wing interests.
There was the time the NYTimes’ Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian population. But Guenter Lewy, in “America in Vietnam,” revealed that “Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reporting…borrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, “Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City…” Lewy,"America in Vietnam," p. 400-401

3. And when warned of the bloodbath that Communist victory in Cambodia would bring, here is the type of MSM reporting that sways so many:
NYTimes Anthony Lewis: “Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening in Cambodia now?” Anthony Lewis in the New York Times, March 17, 1975.

What future possibility?
Here is what happened:
Starting in April ’75, the Communist Khmer Rouge defeated Lon Nol in Cambodia. Democrats, starting with the 1974 budget, refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action “in or over” Indochina. Just as the right had warned, the communists began a systematic war on the entire populations of their nation, so savage, it is hard to comprehend. It is estimated that the number of dead numbered between 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million. The Killing Fields - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Too bad there was no Fox News or right-wing talk radio, eh?

another alumnus of the vaunted NY Times....Herbert Matthews;)

Oh, my gosh! It just clicked for me! Yes, Herbert Matthews....

If there had been an internet in 1957-1959, Herbert Matthews and the NYTimes would not have been able to claim that Fidel Castro was the new George Washington.


I tried to send a rep, Traj, but it wouldn't let me.

its cool, and hes just another Columbia grad too...:eek:;)
 
another alumnus of the vaunted NY Times....Herbert Matthews;)

Oh, my gosh! It just clicked for me! Yes, Herbert Matthews....

If there had been an internet in 1957-1959, Herbert Matthews and the NYTimes would not have been able to claim that Fidel Castro was the new George Washington.


I tried to send a rep, Traj, but it wouldn't let me.

its cool, and hes just another Columbia grad too...:eek:;)

Oh, no....another blot on my alma mater...
 
So, your expertise is in the realm of barnyard effluvia! I should have guessed.

You probably don't realize it, but in your two or three posts, you have contributed less than zero to the sum of human knowledge.

If fact, the best contribution you have made is in allowing those who know, - myself included in that group- to educate the one hundred plus readers of this thread.

Bravo!
You actually serve a purpose, beyond being a source of Soylent Green!



BTW, Captain America is one of my favs....you probably don't realize the humor you provide in having an avatar so clearly antithetical to your person.
Do you?

Oh...now I see....you're the personification of an April Fool's joke!


You obviously do not read Captain America comics, he is as liberal as they get, but I would expect a chickenhawk cheer leader not to understand the essence of the character.

You're right, I don't read comic books.

So, April Fool, when do you provide some support for your position- which seems to be that you disagree with any of my posts?

Aren't you embarrassed when you look at how anemic and insipid your posts have been, basically "Is not, is not...."

Put a little effort into it!

The stupidity that you put forth is only at the level to be mocked and made fun of and not worthy of a reply, and your statement about comic books is the perfect analogy for what you put forth, you are not familiar with the goings on but still make uninformed comments regarding such.
 
You obviously do not read Captain America comics, he is as liberal as they get, but I would expect a chickenhawk cheer leader not to understand the essence of the character.

You're right, I don't read comic books.

So, April Fool, when do you provide some support for your position- which seems to be that you disagree with any of my posts?

Aren't you embarrassed when you look at how anemic and insipid your posts have been, basically "Is not, is not...."

Put a little effort into it!

The stupidity that you put forth is only at the level to be mocked and made fun of and not worthy of a reply, and your statement about comic books is the perfect analogy for what you put forth, you are not familiar with the goings on but still make uninformed comments regarding such.

In high school, I had a science teacher who explained evolutions by having consider the hypothetical case of a monkey sitting at a keyboard and randomly hitting letters....
his point was that, given an infinite amount of time, a monkey could thereby type out the works of Shakespeare.....

Until I read your post, I didn't believe it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top