Beck was right about one thing at least...(MSNBC CLIPS!)

[Liberty]

What I glean from that particular bunch of nonsense from Beck is that he actually believes the American people are stupid enough to ever allow a Caliphate to take over. And yet his Loyal Lemmings don't get that. HE'S CALLING THEM STUPID.

Not to burst your bubble...

But they ARE STUPID

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

Hey, idiot. Yeah, you. The video shows a clip from beck's show on MSNBC and then 99% of it is the accused in their own words. Deal with it, get your head out of your ass.

 

[rightwinger]

What I glean from that particular bunch of nonsense from Beck is that he actually believes the American people are stupid enough to ever allow a Caliphate to take over. And yet his Loyal Lemmings don't get that. HE'S CALLING THEM STUPID.

Not to burst your bubble...

But they ARE STUPID

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

No, I don't think so

Stupid is the correct terminology

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you go looking for the most extreme opinions of someone else in order to justify your own extreme positions? Some of it borders on hysteria. Frankly, that's the very reason I can't stomach Glenn Beck. Sometimes the dots do not connect in your world of close-minded uber conservatism. They're just words, all blurred together which makes it only appear they connect.

What a disappointing post.

This is the best that can be expected of you, another personal attack aimed at me, because you are no longer able to mount an actual counter?

I scoured your post, searching for a rebuttal, a counter, anything to do with my post that you are supposedly answering....

nada.

Where is the alternaive defintion, the denial that progessives and liberals were duped, tricked, had their naiveté used against them?

Couldn's come up with any?

'cause, I would use the words of Bacall and Bogart and the other libs who realised they had been duped.

How about a spirited denial that the Commintern archives didn't reveal that their machinatins were specifically designed to trick progressives, libs, lefties into the fold?

No? Not that either?

Mags, you are a pale remnant of what you once were....
Your posts, at least with reference to mine, are empty reprisals, without any real substantive purpose.

I really don't care if you dislke my style, or sources, or politics...or me....You reduce debate to bickering quibbles....c'mon, put up a real fight.

I refuse to debate your carefully selected historical items as proof of truth. Whenever I have done that, by selecting my own counterpoints (either by linking or my own opinion) and when you can see you've been beaten, you then will post an entirely NEW set of carefully selected much longer opinions often veering completely off course. Trying to stuff your own opinions with lengthy quotations by like-minded individuals is analogous to hoping someone won't notice you've stuffed your meatloaf with more bread than meat.

Nothing personal, but your often revisionist history is a waste of my time.

I fully understand why you would say that.

"...when you can see you've been beaten,..."

Saying so is so much easier than actually doing so.

I suggest that anyone reading our banter in this thread would find your post absurd, and less than truthful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I glean from that particular bunch of nonsense from Beck is that he actually believes the American people are stupid enough to ever allow a Caliphate to take over. And yet his Loyal Lemmings don't get that. HE'S CALLING THEM STUPID.

Not to burst your bubble...

But they ARE STUPID

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

 

[rightwinger]

Not to burst your bubble...

But they ARE STUPID

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

What did the Russians lose?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

What did the Russians lose?

C'mon, little fella, that's an easy one...and it's based on President Reagan's 'evil empire' speech!

1. Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University answered it for you: “…such language stunned and humiliated the Soviet leaders . . . [who] believe that President Reagan is determined to deny the Soviet Union nothing less than its legitimacy and status as a global power . . . status . . . they thought had been conceded once and for all by Reagan's predecessors.” Seweryn Bialer, "Danger in Moscow", the New York Review of Books, February 16, 1984.

a. Reagan’s rhetoric disturbed the left because it made the moral case for anticommunism; liberals thought they had convinced everyone who mattered that anticommunism was the thing to be feared.

b. Why? Fear! After all, communism was certainly not worse than nuclear war, after all, ‘better Red than dead,’ right? Let’s not antagonize the collectivists.

2. Need more of a refresher?
Remember this joke: I invested in the Soviet Union, and it split 18 for one!

Now you remember what they lost?

 

[rightwinger]

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

What did the Russians lose?

C'mon, little fella, that's an easy one...and it's based on President Reagan's 'evil empire' speech!

1. Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University answered it for you: “…such language stunned and humiliated the Soviet leaders . . . [who] believe that President Reagan is determined to deny the Soviet Union nothing less than its legitimacy and status as a global power . . . status . . . they thought had been conceded once and for all by Reagan's predecessors.” Seweryn Bialer, "Danger in Moscow", the New York Review of Books, February 16, 1984.

a. Reagan’s rhetoric disturbed the left because it made the moral case for anticommunism; liberals thought they had convinced everyone who mattered that anticommunism was the thing to be feared.

b. Why? Fear! After all, communism was certainly not worse than nuclear war, after all, ‘better Red than dead,’ right? Let’s not antagonize the collectivists.

2. Need more of a refresher?
Remember this joke: I invested in the Soviet Union, and it split 18 for one!

Now you remember what they lost?

Ummmmmm.......sounds like a win to me

 

[PoliticalChic]

What did the Russians lose?

C'mon, little fella, that's an easy one...and it's based on President Reagan's 'evil empire' speech!

1. Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University answered it for you: “…such language stunned and humiliated the Soviet leaders . . . [who] believe that President Reagan is determined to deny the Soviet Union nothing less than its legitimacy and status as a global power . . . status . . . they thought had been conceded once and for all by Reagan's predecessors.” Seweryn Bialer, "Danger in Moscow", the New York Review of Books, February 16, 1984.

a. Reagan’s rhetoric disturbed the left because it made the moral case for anticommunism; liberals thought they had convinced everyone who mattered that anticommunism was the thing to be feared.

b. Why? Fear! After all, communism was certainly not worse than nuclear war, after all, ‘better Red than dead,’ right? Let’s not antagonize the collectivists.

2. Need more of a refresher?
Remember this joke: I invested in the Soviet Union, and it split 18 for one!

Now you remember what they lost?

Ummmmmm.......sounds like a win to me

Now, wingy, you gave in too easily....I'll bet you knew all along that the US won the Cold War....

 

[rightwinger]

C'mon, little fella, that's an easy one...and it's based on President Reagan's 'evil empire' speech!

1. Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University answered it for you: “…such language stunned and humiliated the Soviet leaders . . . [who] believe that President Reagan is determined to deny the Soviet Union nothing less than its legitimacy and status as a global power . . . status . . . they thought had been conceded once and for all by Reagan's predecessors.” Seweryn Bialer, "Danger in Moscow", the New York Review of Books, February 16, 1984.

a. Reagan’s rhetoric disturbed the left because it made the moral case for anticommunism; liberals thought they had convinced everyone who mattered that anticommunism was the thing to be feared.

b. Why? Fear! After all, communism was certainly not worse than nuclear war, after all, ‘better Red than dead,’ right? Let’s not antagonize the collectivists.

2. Need more of a refresher?
Remember this joke: I invested in the Soviet Union, and it split 18 for one!

Now you remember what they lost?

Ummmmmm.......sounds like a win to me

Now, wingy, you gave in too easily....I'll bet you knew all along that the US won the Cold War....

Our ideology won

The Russian people won.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ummmmmm.......sounds like a win to me

Now, wingy, you gave in too easily....I'll bet you knew all along that the US won the Cold War....

Our ideology won

The Russian people won.

The free people of the world, led by the Americans, won...under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

 

[bodecea]

Beck was right about one thing at least...(MSNBC CLIPS!)

...the American Communists/Socialists and Muslims are teaming up to destroy western civilization...

It is worse than you think....

It also includes the gays, teachers, unions, illegal aliens, liberals, ACORN, black panthers and graduates from elite universities all conspiring to end western civilization as we know it

actually, it doesn't include those people in any meaningful way other than they are useful idiots, and spawn more useful idiots.

Could you perhaps put out your actual opinion on the video provided?

Oh dear....WHO'S the useful idiots again?

 

[rightwinger]

Now, wingy, you gave in too easily....I'll bet you knew all along that the US won the Cold War....

Our ideology won

The Russian people won.

The free people of the world, led by the Americans, won...under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

Don't forget Gorby.

Without his leadership and restraint, the whole thing could have turned into a shooting war.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our ideology won

The Russian people won.

The free people of the world, led by the Americans, won...under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

Don't forget Gorby.

Without his leadership and restraint, the whole thing could have turned into a shooting war.

Wingy, I know it was all the way back to yesterday, but post #44 put that obfuscation to bed.

You don't really want the world (at least the world of USMB) to know that you actually bought the nonsense that 'Gorby' was willing to watch the vaunted Soviet Union recede into lesser-status, do you?

And, at the risk of repeating, are you buying this:"..., the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."


Do you? Huh? Do you?

 

[rightwinger]

The free people of the world, led by the Americans, won...under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

Don't forget Gorby.

Without his leadership and restraint, the whole thing could have turned into a shooting war.

Wingy, I know it was all the way back to yesterday, but post #44 put that obfuscation to bed.

You don't really want the world (at least the world of USMB) to know that you actually bought the nonsense that 'Gorby' was willing to watch the vaunted Soviet Union recede into lesser-status, do you?

And, at the risk of repeating, are you buying this:"..., the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."


Do you? Huh? Do you?

PC

You try to pass yourself off as an intellectual on this board but do you really buy into that rightwing rewrite of history? You are obviously very bright but you also obviously have a political agenda you try to pass off as intellectual fact
Sorry, but I'm not buying the nonsense you are selling

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't forget Gorby.

Without his leadership and restraint, the whole thing could have turned into a shooting war.

Wingy, I know it was all the way back to yesterday, but post #44 put that obfuscation to bed.

You don't really want the world (at least the world of USMB) to know that you actually bought the nonsense that 'Gorby' was willing to watch the vaunted Soviet Union recede into lesser-status, do you?

And, at the risk of repeating, are you buying this:"..., the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."


Do you? Huh? Do you?

PC

You try to pass yourself off as an intellectual on this board but do you really buy into that rightwing rewrite of history? You are obviously very bright but you also obviously have a political agenda you try to pass off as intellectual fact
Sorry, but I'm not buying the nonsense you are selling

Poor wingy...

confronted with the actual sentiments of the man you referenced, your 'gorby,' you pretend that it is my point that Stalin "...had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."

you make this about me?



Poor, poor wingy....

The application of the term 'pretend' can only apply to you an those who 'pretend' that Gorbachev spoke the truth.

My contention is, either

1. you are being less than truthful if you pretend you beleive same

or

2. you are less than- alllow me to use your word 'intellectual' - if you actuallty believe same.

You may self-identify.

Now, let's dispense with your words: "...political agenda you try to pass off as intellectual fact..."
First part, guilty as charged, my agenda is to reveal the dishonesty of the left.
Second part, if you would have to find a way to deny what I have stated is true...double dog dare you to do that.

If you cannot, then your words come right back and bite you you-know-where.
Care to try?

BTW, I'd be happy to provide indicia that Stalin wanted more....
just say the word.

 

[rightwinger]

Wingy, I know it was all the way back to yesterday, but post #44 put that obfuscation to bed.

You don't really want the world (at least the world of USMB) to know that you actually bought the nonsense that 'Gorby' was willing to watch the vaunted Soviet Union recede into lesser-status, do you?

And, at the risk of repeating, are you buying this:"..., the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."


Do you? Huh? Do you?

PC

You try to pass yourself off as an intellectual on this board but do you really buy into that rightwing rewrite of history? You are obviously very bright but you also obviously have a political agenda you try to pass off as intellectual fact
Sorry, but I'm not buying the nonsense you are selling

Poor wingy...

confronted with the actual sentiments of the man you referenced, your 'gorby,' you pretend that it is my point that Stalin "...had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."

you make this about me?



Poor, poor wingy....

The application of the term 'pretend' can only apply to you an those who 'pretend' that Gorbachev spoke the truth.

My contention is, either

1. you are being less than truthful if you pretend you beleive same

or

2. you are less than- alllow me to use your word 'intellectual' - if you actuallty believe same.

You may self-identify.

Now, let's dispense with your words: "...political agenda you try to pass off as intellectual fact..."
First part, guilty as charged, my agenda is to reveal the dishonesty of the left.
Second part, if you would have to find a way to deny what I have stated is true...double dog dare you to do that.

If you cannot, then your words come right back and bite you you-know-where.
Care to try?

BTW, I'd be happy to provide indicia that Stalin wanted more....
just say the word.

PC

You are obviously more intelligent than you show here I understand that you have an agenda you want to sell and regurgitate rightwing revisionist history as though it were fact.
Most of your posts are just cut and paste from rightwing websites that you frequent. Not much original thought on your part but I believe that is your intent

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC

You try to pass yourself off as an intellectual on this board but do you really buy into that rightwing rewrite of history? You are obviously very bright but you also obviously have a political agenda you try to pass off as intellectual fact
Sorry, but I'm not buying the nonsense you are selling

Poor wingy...

confronted with the actual sentiments of the man you referenced, your 'gorby,' you pretend that it is my point that Stalin "...had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."

you make this about me?



Poor, poor wingy....

The application of the term 'pretend' can only apply to you an those who 'pretend' that Gorbachev spoke the truth.

My contention is, either

1. you are being less than truthful if you pretend you beleive same

or

2. you are less than- alllow me to use your word 'intellectual' - if you actuallty believe same.

You may self-identify.

Now, let's dispense with your words: "...political agenda you try to pass off as intellectual fact..."
First part, guilty as charged, my agenda is to reveal the dishonesty of the left.
Second part, if you would have to find a way to deny what I have stated is true...double dog dare you to do that.

If you cannot, then your words come right back and bite you you-know-where.
Care to try?

BTW, I'd be happy to provide indicia that Stalin wanted more....
just say the word.

PC

You are obviously more intelligent than you show here I understand that you have an agenda you want to sell and regurgitate rightwing revisionist history as though it were fact.
Most of your posts are just cut and paste from rightwing websites that you frequent. Not much original thought on your part but I believe that is your intent

"...to sell and regurgitate rightwing revisionist history..."
Wingy, I'm sure that one day you will read what you wrote, and mutter 'did I write that???'

In the context of our posts, it bears no correspondence with reality.
1. sell and regurgitate...pejorative though it be, would you apply same to those on your side of the debate, if they were to post documented and sources material?

You see, wingy, it's what each side does, so your criticism is somewhat flaccid.
Documenting one's premise is something one learns in college.

2. revisionist...while technically not so, the general usage implies an untruth.
If this were the case, you would be able to rebut what I have posted.
Since you decided the the path of least resistence was to make the debate about me, and my 'agenda,' you have clearly decided that you'd be unable to refute same....
So the untruthful part, it seems, applies not to me, but to you.


3. "You are obviously more intelligent than you show here..."
Since you said the opposite earlier, "You are obviously very bright...," I fear for your stability....
the appearance is of one losing the argument and deciding to move into attack mode.

You see, the folks on the left have been in control of the MSM and the universities for so long that you actually have decided that it is unnecessay to question what your side says.
So, when you come to one who can actually provide proof that your worldview is untrue, or let us say flawed, you bounce around in confusion and anger....

4. Why is it so terrible for you to admit that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, dedicated to the domination and subjugation of the world, and that President Ronald Reagan framed the debate as one of good vs. evil....and won the debate?

Would that shake you to your very marrow?

 

[rightwinger]

PC

I have noticed the change in your posting style in recent months. While in the past, you stated your personal opinions (which were pretty good) backed by an appropriate reference, your recent postings reveal an obvious agenda. You have taken on the role of an intellectual troll trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable

Your postings used to provide room for thought and discussion, now they are little better than I can get from watching an hour of Glenn Beck

 

[Liberty]

pc

i have noticed the change in your posting style in recent months. While in the past, you stated your personal opinions (which were pretty good) backed by an appropriate reference, your recent postings reveal an obvious agenda. You have taken on the role of an intellectual troll trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable

your postings used to provide room for thought and discussion, now they are little better than i can get from watching an hour of glenn beck

wow! Complete sentences!! Impressive!

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC

I have noticed the change in your posting style in recent months. While in the past, you stated your personal opinions (which were pretty good) backed by an appropriate reference, your recent postings reveal an obvious agenda. You have taken on the role of an intellectual troll trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable

Your postings used to provide room for thought and discussion, now they are little better than I can get from watching an hour of Glenn Beck

1. "obvious agenda. "
I would hope so!

2. "trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable"

What is predictable is that you guys on the left, unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, are reduced to ad hominem...

3. For some reason, you guys on the left feel it is your birthright to provide the dispositive response in all debates....and you are upset because I don't bow to your wishes....
Those days are over.

I explain things to you for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well as the frig.