Beware the ploys of the left

[darkbeaver]

And lets be honest, what was the reason Reagan was supporting the Taliban again? Oh yeah, the Soviet invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan. I'm not absolving Reagan of any blame but trying to point out that he and the rest of the NATO countries were onside with supporting the various mujahadeen groups. Collectively where we (NATO) failed was to help our erstwhile allies rebuild after they were victorious in our little proxy war, thus giving the Taliban a chance to seize power, and that blame can be spread across national and party lines. That doesn't detract from the fact that it was an extremist regime of the far left (the totalitarians of the Soviet Union) that created the whole mess in the first place.

The extreme left is just as dogmatic, violent and repressive as the extreme right and anyone who doesn't believe that needs only brush up on 20th century history to see it. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others showed us that but its something dogmatists are too willing to forget.

Yes but it's not the extreme left ****ing up the global economy or threatening global war is it? No it isn't it's our extreme right capitalist pigs who have no equals in infamy, none that even approach the glutonous murderous destruction and deciet of the present scumbags. The true dogmatist continues to spout warnings to the congrgation of the dire consequences of the left and socialism while the congregation is being eaten alive by the capitalist right.

 

[wulfie68]

SirJoseph, I specifically stated I didn't absolve Reagan because I was indirectly saying what you did outright: no one's hands are clean when it comes to the Islamic extremists.

And you can demonize the US and the rest of NATO for supporting monsters like Pinochet and Suharto, as you like, but at the same time look at who they were trying to thwart. The names of the Soviet patsy's in the various proxy wars tend to fade from memory because we only remember the victorious ones, but who will argue for the human rights records of Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro or Daniel Ortega? These weren't elected leaders (until after their revolutionary wars were over and their opposition killed/imprisoned/exiled) but those who want to criticize "the right" always seem to avoid that fact as well. If you want to speak in terms of moral absolutism, I hold the right less to blame in many of those situations because since the end of WW2 while they may have chosen some unpalatable regimes to befriend, they were predominantly reacting to armed insurrection/rebellion/revolution from the left (something the dogmatists on the extreme admitted to be their goal: world wide revolution of the proletariat).There's a lot of difference between talking about support of a group like the Contras in isolation vs speaking of supporting them as the response to your enemy initiating a situation by supporting an equally bloodthirsty group (the Sandinistas).

And Darkbeaver, you need to lay off the vitriol. While I agree that completely unfettered capitalism has a myriad of problems (some of which have struck our economy in the past year) its still not mass murder and imprisonment as performed by Stalin and Mao. Those two deserve places on the platform next to Hitler as examples of the murderous politics of extremism (left and right) that the last century produced.

 

[Colpy]

Yes but it's not the extreme left ****ing up the global economy or threatening global war is it? No it isn't it's our extreme right capitalist pigs who have no equals in infamy, none that even approach the glutonous murderous destruction and deciet of the present scumbags. The true dogmatist continues to spout warnings to the congrgation of the dire consequences of the left and socialism while the congregation is being eaten alive by the capitalist right.

Well, that is if you ignore North Korea......or is it really left???????

Come to think of it, there are no far left gov'ts left.....I guess after they murdered over 100 million people in the twentieth century we just got tired of them.......

"No equals in infamy"?

HA!

 

[CDNBear]

Worthington is entitled to his opinion. But, like many Canadians on this forum, he displays his ignorance while adamantly defending his warped views.

He condemns Sovietism like I have done in the past on this forum. But he fails to note that it was Republican Hoover whose handouts financed the Red Army campaign in 1922 [op cit] which entrenched Stalin and led to the Cold war. He does not mention Prescott Bush's role in helping to arm Nazi Germany. He ignores the Republican 9/11 Commission Report which clearly stated that Clinton was never given the opportunity to arrest OBL. And as for Islamofascism, everyody knows it was Reagan whose financial handouts led to the Taliban's usurpation in Afghanistan.

I post on other web forums but this is the only one where deluded right wingers continue to defend Republican failed policies which ultimately created the USA's and the world's enemies. In every other forum that I post on the far right loonies have all given up on defending the Republican failings. Interestingly, the RealCities network which used to be the biggest defender of Republican far right ideology has closed down its forums because so many Republicans gave up on defending those failings. By contrast, it was Democrat Harry Truman whose Truman Doctrine stop the spread of communism. This without a word of praise from the far right.

If you far right delusionals continue to insist on condemning the Democrats while praising Republicans, why don't you do yourselves a favor by posting your views on democraticunderground.com? Here is a leftist web forum where if you are so smart and so brave, you can tell them how stupid you think they are.

Of course, they will tell you to f^ck off. If you are so smart and so tough, that would not present a problem for any of you.

Oh brother, you really need help...How's that Republican conspiracy treatin ya?

I decided to look up Peter Worthington (before reading he article, I always look up the source, that tells me of the bias of the author). This is what Wikipedia says:

A conservative, Worthington led the brash new tabloid (Toronto Sun) throughout the 1970s as it campaigned against the government of Pierre Trudeau. At one point he was jailed after being accused of violating the Official Secrets Act.

Yep, because he believes in reporting the whole truth...unlike some Toronto publications.

Following the 1981 police raid of gay bathouses in Toronto, Worthington, in an editorial and again in an interview with CBC Radio's Sunday Morning threatened to publish the name of future found-ins.[1]

What this means is that he threatened to out the gays, back in 1981, when there was so much prejudice against gays, that their lives could have been in danger. But something like that wouldn’t bother gay basher like Worthington. So a few gays die, so what is lost, where is the harm?

So he's a intolerant douche, your point?

He ran as a conservative party candidate.

He succeeded in becoming the official Progressive Conservative candidate for the riding in the 1984 general election, but was again defeated by McDonald.

Worthington was criticized when it was revealed that he had informed to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation about the suspected political sympathies of a number of his friends including June Callwood.[2][3]

A back stabber, no less.

Did you read why? Or are you just pulling dumb out of your a$$?

And this is the worthy, the luminary whose word we are supposed to take as the Gospel truth? If one is a conservative, perhaps. I wouldn’t take his word if he tells me that 2 plus 2 make four, I would want an independent opinion by a mathematician.

Of course, because all of what you posted and gleaned over means what? Squat really, you don't want to believe what he's saying, because it means you may be wrong, or duped like Juanita.

The column is a pure hatchet job on the left, nothing more. Joe McCarthy himself would be proud.

:lol: You didn't read the article did you? That's ok, neither did Juanita, you just think it's about Liberals and that was enough to fool ya into spouting off all dumb like, great job.

Jee-Zuz! Does this one have to turn into another anti-Republican septic tank too? If you're all so obsessed with it ... why don't you all live together and kill each other properly?

Of course it does Lone, that's how this works. You post something that counters someones beliefs then instead of any real examination, they set upon proving it wrong. Though in this case they will fail, as in most cases.

But I like when they play along.
____________________________________________

I'm no fan of Worthington, he leans a little to far right for my tastes. I don't like his stance on homosexuality, nor much of his political platform for that matter. Colpy can attest to that, we discussed one of Peters books on the Canadian Airborne Regiment a while ago.

And let me assure you, I do not oft find myself siding with Peter, but in this instance, he hit the nail on the head, and smashed the fringe through the board.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So he's a intolerant douche, your point?

CDNBear, OK, so we agree.

Did you read why?

I don’t care why, one does not rat on one’s friends to FBI, unless those friends have broken some serious laws. He is a back stabber and that is that.

Of course, because all of what you posted and gleaned over means what?

What this means is that somebody who is an intolerant douche (your words), a self confessed back stabber, cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to say.

Or even if he does, there is no way of knowing if it is worthwhile or just some poison spouted by the intolerant douche. We cannot know that unless what he says is confirmed by an independent , reputable source.

So why should I waste my time reading what an intolerant douche (your words), a Joe McCarthy look-alike has to say? You re welcome to it. Accept it as the Gospel truth, don’t accept it, it is all the same to me.

But I have a big problem with taking seriously what the underside of the society, the filth of the society has to say about anything.

You didn't read the article did you?

Again, why should I read anything by an intolerant douche (your words), a Joe McCarthy look-alike?

 

[lone wolf]

Again, why should I read anything by an intolerant douche (your words), a Joe McCarthy look-alike?

...What gives you any right to judge then?

 

[CDNBear]

So he's a intolerant douche, your point?

CDNBear, OK, so we agree.

Did you read why?

I don’t care why, one does not rat on one’s friends to FBI, unless those friends have broken some serious laws. He is a back stabber and that is that.

:roll:, y , ok, I called ODSP on my brother when he was abusing it, I guess I'm a backstabber too. But I can still shave, so I guess I can live with that.

Of course, because all of what you posted and gleaned over means what?

What this means is that somebody who is an intolerant douche (your words), a self confessed back stabber, cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to say.

OK, so someone like Galloway must fall in the same category right?

Or even if he does, there is no way of knowing if it is worthwhile or just some poison spouted by the intolerant douche. We cannot know that unless what he says is confirmed by an independent , reputable source.

If you base someones credibility on there opinion alone, you need to get help.

So why should I waste my time reading what an intolerant douche (your words), a Joe McCarthy look-alike has to say? You re welcome to it. Accept it as the Gospel truth, don’t accept it, it is all the same to me.

I didn't say you had to, but it sure would lend some credibility to your bullsh!t reply, if you had actually read it. See, that's how you lose cred, you comment on something you haven't even read, thinking you know what was said, making yourself look lik ethe as$ you are, way to prove my point. Thanx...

But I have a big problem with taking seriously what the underside of the society, the filth of the society has to say about anything.

How would you know, you didn't read it. But I bet anything that supports your views, no matter the source is just awesome...:roll:

You didn't read the article did you?

Again, why should I read anything by an intolerant douche (your words), a Joe McCarthy look-alike?

You're a joke. Your post is the punch line...:lol:

 

[CDNBear]

...What gives you any right to judge then?

He's a member of the left?

:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

if you had actually read it. See, that's how you lose cred, you comment on something you haven't even read, thinking you know what was said,


Sorry, CDNBear, but again, I don’t care what the said, he cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to say. I won’t believe anything he says unless confirmed by a reputable source. Then why not just read the reputable source and skip the Joe McCarthy look-alike?

Anyway, if you want to go rummaging through the dung that is excreted by the underbelly of the society, by the right wing nut jobs in the hope that you may gleam some truth, find a few kernels of truth from that, go ahead. That is not for me.

I say such a scum of the society as Worthington has nothing worthwhile to say. I assume in your opinion, whatever he says is the Gospel truth (or may be not, I don’t care). Let us just agree to disagree on this.

 

[lone wolf]

if you had actually read it. See, that's how you lose cred, you comment on something you haven't even read, thinking you know what was said,


Sorry, CDNBear, but again, I don’t care what the said, he cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to say. I won’t believe anything he says unless confirmed by a reputable source. Then why not just read the reputable source and skip the Joe McCarthy look-alike?

Anyway, if you want to go rummaging through the dung that is excreted by the underbelly of the society, by the right wing nut jobs in the hope that you may gleam some truth, find a few kernels of truth from that, go ahead. That is not for me.

I say such a scum of the society as Worthington has nothing worthwhile to say. I assume in your opinion, whatever he says is the Gospel truth (or may be not, I don’t care). Let us just agree to disagree on this.

So ... why comment if only for the sake of a post count....

Pompous, blowhard, what other adjectives? (no four-letter. He orgasms on those)

Foghorn Leghorn.... That's the one I was thinking of....

 

[Cannuck]

What this means is that somebody who is an intolerant douche (your words), a self confessed back stabber, cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to say.

Just because you're a pompous twit doesn't mean you don't have anything worthwhile to say. Everybody has something worthwhile to say whether or not you and/or I agree with it. Discussion in and of itself is worthwhile. I suspect one day, possibly not that far into the future, maybe decades from now, your turn will come and we'll all go...WOW, SJP just said something worthwhile. It gives me goose bumps just thinking about it.

 

[Walter]

Another book Mr. Worthington will probably like is called, "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin. It's about how the US was conceived and how it has fared since 1776, but I'm sure there are Canadian parallels in it. It's been #1 on the NYT best sellers since its release last month. I'm looking forward to reading it soon.

 

[lone wolf]

Beware the ploys of the... -You gave me bad rep, I am returning the favour. on Apr 14th, 2009

For whomever doesn't have the guts to sign theirs ... MY neg reps get signed.

Reps haven't worked for a couple of days either, so here's your favour:


.................... ..... /́̅/)
.................... ..,/̅ ..//
.................... ./... ./ /
............./́̅/' ...'/́̅ ̅`·̧
........../'/.../... ./... ..../̈̅\
........('(...́(.. ?...... ,~/'...')
.........\.......... ..... ..\/..../
..........''...\.... ..... . _.·́
............\....... ..... ..(
..............\..... ..... ...\

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I decided to look up Peter Worthington (before reading he article, I always look up the source, that tells me of the bias of the author). This is what Wikipedia says:

You surprise me, well not really...You made a similar snap judgement of Lorne Gunther, (another unknown scribbler to you) on a different forum in approximately 35 minutes, by accessing Wikipedia, a very objective and true source of unbiased information. Peter Worthington has been around for a long time, surprised you hadn't heard of him. The demise of the Toronto Telegram left the Star as the only daily source of evening print news, a paper even too far left for some Ndippers and early morning Globe readers. The Sun was originally the product of laid off Telegram workers, it failed at first but eventually did find a footing, but I am surprised you don't remember that, it was only about 40 years ago. ;-)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Peter Worthington has been around for a long time, surprised you hadn't heard of him.

I had heard of him before, bobnoorduyne, and I knew he belonged to the lunatic right. But I wanted to be sure of my grounds before I declared him to be the scum of the earth, a Joe McCarthy look-alike, a gay basher.

And you are right, Wikipedia is not always reliable. However, in this instance I was safe in trusting Wikipedia. If anything they had written about Worthington was false, no doubt they would have faced a substantial lawsuit.

Wikipedia may not be reliable when it comes to describing a phenomena, or historical occurrence etc. Even then it is usually reliable, but it is better to check a second source, just to be on the safe side.

However, when they say anything about a person, especially when they say anything negative about a person, I have no problem relying on that information, as a lawsuit would almost certainly had resulted if the information has been false.

You made a similar snap judgment of Lorne Gunther, (another unknown scribbler to you) on a different forum in approximately 35 minutes, by accessing Wikipedia,

Sure I did bobnoorduyne. When somebody springs an author on you, how can you tell if the information is reliable or not? A quick and easy way is to check how reliable the author is. When I read things like he threatened to out gays (thereby possibly endangering their lives) or that he ratted on his friends just to curry favours with FBI, I knew that he is not an individual on whom one could rely with utmost confidence.

After all, would you place any faith, any confidence in what a convicted pedophile says? This is similar, the source taints the story.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

What still surprises me is that ordinary folks will use examples of the occasional failures of captialism to extoll the virtues of the permanent failures of sociaism.

 

[gopher]

''Oh brother, you really need help...''

Yeah, right. How's your search for Iraq's WMD and other proofs that the Republicans have been telling us the truth all along?

 

[gopher]

''I had heard of him before, bobnoorduyne, and I knew he belonged to the lunatic right. But I wanted to be sure of my grounds before I declared him to be the scum of the earth, a Joe McCarthy look-alike, a gay basher.''


Amazingly, CDNBear respects his writings - kinda ironic since he posted a thread entitled "I'm here, I'm queer'' quite a while ago.

 

[gopher]

''Just because you're a pompous twit''

And you said, you NEVER insult anyone here.

Shame, shame!

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Peter Worthington has been around for a long time, surprised you hadn't heard of him.

I had heard of him before, bobnoorduyne, and I knew he belonged to the lunatic right. But I wanted to be sure of my grounds before I declared him to be the scum of the earth, a Joe McCarthy look-alike, a gay basher.

Gay basher? Sounds like assault and battery, I've never heard of Peter Worthington ever being charged. Oh right, He may have said things you or someone else don't agree with, boo hoo, it was a freedom we used to have, that of free speech. ("lunatic right"? still haven't figured out left and right yet huh?)

And you are right, Wikipedia is not always reliable. However, in this instance I was safe in trusting Wikipedia. If anything they had written about Worthington was false, no doubt they would have faced a substantial lawsuit.

Even bad press is good for scribblers, and besides, lawsuits cost money. But that's beside the point, you formed an opinion from someone else's opinion, I read the report on War and Peace, it was a book about Russia. I don't always agree with all the writings of all journalists, sometimes I disagree vehemently with scribblers I admire immensely, sometimes I even write and tell them so. Sometimes they even write me back, George Jonas did. I've formed my opinions over time.

You made a similar snap judgment of Lorne Gunther, (another unknown scribbler to you) on a different forum in approximately 35 minutes, by accessing Wikipedia,

Sure I did bobnoorduyne. When somebody springs an author on you, how can you tell if the information is reliable or not? A quick and easy way is to check how reliable the author is. When I read things like he threatened to out gays (thereby possibly endangering their lives) or that he ratted on his friends just to curry favours with FBI, I knew that he is not an individual on whom one could rely with utmost confidence.

After all, would you place any faith, any confidence in what a convicted pedophile says? This is similar, the source taints the story.

Now that's a bit of a stretch, "ratting on friends" is not a criminal act nor is threatening to "out gays", regardless of any percieved third party threat, (gay rights activists have been doing this to their own for at leas 30 years). Comparing that to giving credence to a criminal convict of any kind is just ludicrous. BTW, my handle doesn't end with an "e", but is pronounced nore-dine.