This is the Age of Censorship!

[Yurt]

Yurt continues to lie and attack.

If I make an affirmation, I will back up with evidence.

I don't have to give evidence to refute somebody's affirmation that is given without evidence.

That is how the rules of discussion go.

when have you ever backed up a claim i asked you to back up?

When you posted the original affirmation without evidence then you ask me to refute it.

Not how it works.

show me just one post where you have backed up a claim for me...just one

i predict you won't because you know that no such post exists

 

[Antares]

You rarely back up affirmations with evidence, Roo.

Let's stop your lying right now. I am going back to the OP.

Jake your ass is showing again.

I have shown you where OUR conversation started, I have proven Carter gutted the Military and I am asking you to show where 100's of NCO's and Officers left the ervice because of Iran Contra.

It is just that simple for you to save face.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you have given no evidence, Roo.

Why are you are trying to derail the OP about censorship?

In sharp contrast to the general public's perception, human rights champion Jimmy Carter was no pacifist. It should not be forgotten that the only twentieth-century American president who had a longer military career than Carter's in the U.S. Navy--from 1943 to 1954--was four-star general Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme Allied commander in World War II. Carter abhorred only the unnecessary use of military force, and as president he worked to modernize the armed forces, not weaken them. "I'm a military man by training and background, and the statistics are there," he pointed out years later to rebut Reagan's claim that his predecessor had left America's armed forces in shambles. After all, it was the hard-line Carter administration defense policies Reagan inherited and built on that led to the end of the cold war. "I believe historians and political observers alike have failed to appreciate the importance of Jimmy Carter's contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War," Bush administration CIA director Robert M. Gates has maintained. "He was the first president during the Cold War to challenge publicly and consistently the legitimacy of Soviet rule at home. Carter's human rights policy ... by the testimony of countless Soviet and East European dissidents and future democratic leaders challenged the moral authority of the Soviet government and gave American sanction and support to those resisting that government." Martin Walker, U.S. bureau chief of Britain's Guardian, in his book The Cold War (1994) laments the fact that a mythology has been created that "Reagan arrived to find a West half-disarmed and thoroughly demoralized, and wrought a great transformation." As Walker made clear, this Tory view of America's later cold war history was nonsense, as the facts bore out. Carter strengthened and modernized the U.S. military during a very difficult post-Vietnam War period, when the Pentagon was unpopular. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/brinkley-unfinished.html

 

[Antares]

I'll post it again just for you Jake. (The NYT, really?)

Carter had inherited a wide variety of tough problems in international affairs, and in dealing with them, he was hampered by confusion and uncertainty in Congress and the nation concerning the role the nation should play in the world. A similar state of mind prevailed in the closely related area of military policy, and that state of mind affected the administration. At the beginning of his presidency, Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and announced that American troops would be withdrawn from South Korea. He also decided against construction of the B-1 bomber as a replacement for the aging B-52, regarding the proposed airplane as costly and obsolete, and also decided to cut back on the navy's shipbuilding program. Champions of military power protested, charging that he was not sufficiently sensitive to the threat of the Soviet Union.

In recent years, the Soviets had strengthened their forces and influence, expanding the army, developing a large navy, and increasing their arms and technicians in the Third World. As Carter's concern about these developments mounted, he alarmed critics of military spending by calling for a significant increase in the military budget for fiscal 1979, a substantial strengthening of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces, and the development and deployment of a new weapon, the neutron bomb. Next, he dismayed advocates of greater military strength by first deciding that the bomb would not be built and then announcing that production would be postponed while the nation waited to see how the Soviets behaved.

In both diplomatic and military matters, the president often found it difficult to stick with his original intentions. He made concessions to demands for more military spending and more activity in Africa and became less critical of American arms sales. He both responded to criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and sought to restore its effectiveness, regarding it as an essential instrument that had been misused.

Critics, including Henry Kissinger, Henry Jackson, and many Republican senators, found him weak and ineffective, confusing and confused. They suggested that his administration had "seen that its neat theories about the world do not fit the difficult realities" and that "it must now come to grips with the world as it is." One close observer, Meg Greenfield of Newsweek magazine, wrote in 1978 that while "many of our politicians, more traumatized than instructed by that miserable war [Vietnam], tend to see Vietnams everywhere," more and more congressmen "seem . . . to be getting bored with their own post-Vietnam bemusement," and "under great provocation from abroad, Carter himself is beginning to move."


Read more: Military policy - Jimmy Carter - war


For more than 3 decades, the term “hollow army” or the more expansive idiom, “hollow force,” has represented President Carter’s alleged willingness to allow American military capability to deteriorate in the face of growing Soviet capability.

A "Hollow Army" Reappraised: President Carter, Defense Budgets, and the Politics of Military Readiness

Fitting with his "dovish" foreign policy stance, Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion within months of assuming office

Jimmy Carter - New World Encyclopedia

 

[Antares]

Move on to the NCO's and Officer's left the service because Iran Contra?

 

[Yurt]

when have you ever backed up a claim i asked you to back up?

When you posted the original affirmation without evidence then you ask me to refute it.

Not how it works.

show me just one post where you have backed up a claim for me...just one

i predict you won't because you know that no such post exists

as i predicted jake could not find a single post where he backed something up for me

i win again

 

[JakeStarkey]

And we see fail by Yurt and Roo. Nothing new from reactionaries. My proof in #63 and unrefuted in #64.

You guys make it too easy for those of us who are so much more knowledgeable than you: but tis what tis.

 

[Yurt]

and we see more jaketroll

no source to back up his claims

and the typical whiny "you're a reactionary" rant

poor jake, life is out there, but he just can't find it

 

[JakeStarkey]

the typical whiny "you're a reactionary" rant

That reactionaries can't refute the proof that Carter began the revitalization of a modern American military.

They can't refute that Iran Contra hurt American military morale.

Poor reactionaries

The great thing of the OP this Age of Censorship the reading public finds it reject reactionary whining.

 

[Yurt]

the typical whiny "you're a reactionary" rant

That reactionaries can't refute the proof that Carter began the revitalization of a modern American military.

They can't refute that Iran Contra hurt American military morale.

Poor reactionaries

The great thing of the OP this Age of Censorship the reading public finds it reject reactionary whining.

reactionaries reactionaries reactionaries reactionaries....

what a sad little troll

 

[sfcalifornia]

It is remarkable how successful the media has been in closing down debate. Not merely marginalizing opposing voices, but actually shhhhushing those questions whose answers might prove....embarrassing.
Even momentous inquiries of an eschatological nature! Shhhhh!


1. Imagine if one were so obstrusive as to critique Obama as a Marxist, or a socialist, or a 'fellow traveler.' Even if a quotation from Obama himself were provided ( "...spreading the wealth..." "...you didn't build that..."), there would be instant shock, rejection, derision, and scoffing in disbelief.
One would be discredited...even if one were to speak of policies such as socialized medicine, that definitively Marxist program, one roundly applauded by Bolsheviks, progressives, statists, socialists, and fellow travelers.

2. What has been accomplished in our modern era is denial of reality. Not bad enough that freedom loving, individualistic, self-reliant Americans have elected a President who could accurately be identified with the terms Marxist, or socialist, or statist....but even worse, "one cannot even broach the subject without triggering an avalanche of opprobrium."
West, "American Betrayal," p.25.

3. "Even beyond the question of how Americans elected a man incubated in a radical comfort zone peopled by Stalinists, Maoists, card-carrying Communists, socialists, and postmodern revolutionaries unhelpfully obscured as "Alinskyites," and who first ran for elected office as both a Democrat and socialist (New Party) "fusion" candidate, how did this topic of crucial public interest become a conversation ender, something to wave off, frantically, like a bad smell?" Ibid.






a. " The assertion that Barack Obama is a socialist became a hallmark of the 2008 presidential campaign... “When you spread the wealth around,” Obama had said, “it’s good for everybody.” That, McCain insisted, sounded “a lot like socialism,” as did Obama’s proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy and high earners for the explicit purpose of taking better care of the lower and middle classes with that redistributed money. Republicans believed they had hit a rhetorical mother lode with this line of argument in 2008, but their efforts to make hay of Obama’s putative socialism proved unedifying, if not outright comic."
« What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama? Commentary Magazine






4. Who let America down?
Was it the Democrats, the party owned lock-stock-and barrel by the far Left, the socialists, the Marxists?
Was it the American public, the folks who seemed unable to get excited about anything, the folks who epitomized George Santayana's warnings?

No, it was the Right...the so-called conservative pundits who didn't scream, or make much of a fuss about the attitudes and associations of the Marxist candidate.

a. In October of 2008, on Fox, Charles Krauthammer had his chance....and, instead, pooh-poohed the socialism:

" Since the word "socialism" has reared its ugly head, let's dispose of it..... Socialism actually is when the government takes over means of production, or Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy.... Now, obviously what Obama is talking about is what we have had for a long time, progressive taxation. Now, he wants to raise the marginal income tax rate from about 36 percent today to about 39.5. It is a little higher because he wants to eliminate a lot of deductions that the other income people have, so perhaps it's in the 40's."
'Special Report' Panel Discuses Whether Obama's Tax Plan Is Socialism in Disguise; Whatever Happened to Bipartisanship? | Fox News



b. There seems to be fear from those who should give the story the prominence it deserves, and the reason was ably described by Andrew C. McCarthy as ..."fog from the vaporous arsenal to which Alinskyites resort when they know that clarity would betray their radicalism and antagonize the public."
Read more at National Review?s Andrew McCarthy Has a Sweet Jihad For You



So....American could have been a champ, but our big brothers sold us out. They had a chance to lay it all out....to make it a fight....but played word games instead.




On The Waterfront-The most Famous scene with that quote-I Could Have Been A Contender.flv - YouTube




America got a one way ticket to palookaville.

.........there would be instant shock, rejection, derision, and scoffing in disbelief.

BFD

None of that = censorship.

And really? You're going to try to tell us FAUXNews and other right-wing news sources aren't ever shocked or reject, deride or scoff in disbelief? Partisan crap.

If you're gonna go on and blather about censorship, then where's the censorship?

The rest of your post is just aimless chatter about how Obama is a socialist. Yawn.

Just the usual pseudo-intellectual BS from PC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the typical whiny "you're a reactionary" rant

That reactionaries can't refute the proof that Carter began the revitalization of a modern American military.

They can't refute that Iran Contra hurt American military morale.

Poor reactionaries

The great thing of the OP this Age of Censorship the reading public finds it reject reactionary whining.

reactionaries reactionaries reactionaries reactionaries....

Yes, sad little trolls are the reactionaries.

 

[Yurt]

That reactionaries can't refute the proof that Carter began the revitalization of a modern American military.

They can't refute that Iran Contra hurt American military morale.

Poor reactionaries

The great thing of the OP this Age of Censorship the reading public finds it reject reactionary whining.

reactionaries reactionaries reactionaries reactionaries....

Yes, sad little trolls are the reactionaries.

oh the irony

imitation is often considered flattery jakey, but from you, it is just annoying

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is remarkable how successful the media has been in closing down debate. Not merely marginalizing opposing voices, but actually shhhhushing those questions whose answers might prove....embarrassing.
Even momentous inquiries of an eschatological nature! Shhhhh!


1. Imagine if one were so obstrusive as to critique Obama as a Marxist, or a socialist, or a 'fellow traveler.' Even if a quotation from Obama himself were provided ( "...spreading the wealth..." "...you didn't build that..."), there would be instant shock, rejection, derision, and scoffing in disbelief.
One would be discredited...even if one were to speak of policies such as socialized medicine, that definitively Marxist program, one roundly applauded by Bolsheviks, progressives, statists, socialists, and fellow travelers.

2. What has been accomplished in our modern era is denial of reality. Not bad enough that freedom loving, individualistic, self-reliant Americans have elected a President who could accurately be identified with the terms Marxist, or socialist, or statist....but even worse, "one cannot even broach the subject without triggering an avalanche of opprobrium."
West, "American Betrayal," p.25.

3. "Even beyond the question of how Americans elected a man incubated in a radical comfort zone peopled by Stalinists, Maoists, card-carrying Communists, socialists, and postmodern revolutionaries unhelpfully obscured as "Alinskyites," and who first ran for elected office as both a Democrat and socialist (New Party) "fusion" candidate, how did this topic of crucial public interest become a conversation ender, something to wave off, frantically, like a bad smell?" Ibid.






a. " The assertion that Barack Obama is a socialist became a hallmark of the 2008 presidential campaign... “When you spread the wealth around,” Obama had said, “it’s good for everybody.” That, McCain insisted, sounded “a lot like socialism,” as did Obama’s proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy and high earners for the explicit purpose of taking better care of the lower and middle classes with that redistributed money. Republicans believed they had hit a rhetorical mother lode with this line of argument in 2008, but their efforts to make hay of Obama’s putative socialism proved unedifying, if not outright comic."
« What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama? Commentary Magazine






4. Who let America down?
Was it the Democrats, the party owned lock-stock-and barrel by the far Left, the socialists, the Marxists?
Was it the American public, the folks who seemed unable to get excited about anything, the folks who epitomized George Santayana's warnings?

No, it was the Right...the so-called conservative pundits who didn't scream, or make much of a fuss about the attitudes and associations of the Marxist candidate.

a. In October of 2008, on Fox, Charles Krauthammer had his chance....and, instead, pooh-poohed the socialism:

" Since the word "socialism" has reared its ugly head, let's dispose of it..... Socialism actually is when the government takes over means of production, or Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy.... Now, obviously what Obama is talking about is what we have had for a long time, progressive taxation. Now, he wants to raise the marginal income tax rate from about 36 percent today to about 39.5. It is a little higher because he wants to eliminate a lot of deductions that the other income people have, so perhaps it's in the 40's."
'Special Report' Panel Discuses Whether Obama's Tax Plan Is Socialism in Disguise; Whatever Happened to Bipartisanship? | Fox News



b. There seems to be fear from those who should give the story the prominence it deserves, and the reason was ably described by Andrew C. McCarthy as ..."fog from the vaporous arsenal to which Alinskyites resort when they know that clarity would betray their radicalism and antagonize the public."
Read more at National Review?s Andrew McCarthy Has a Sweet Jihad For You



So....American could have been a champ, but our big brothers sold us out. They had a chance to lay it all out....to make it a fight....but played word games instead.




On The Waterfront-The most Famous scene with that quote-I Could Have Been A Contender.flv - YouTube




America got a one way ticket to palookaville.

.........there would be instant shock, rejection, derision, and scoffing in disbelief.

BFD

None of that = censorship.

And really? You're going to try to tell us FAUXNews and other right-wing news sources aren't ever shocked or reject, deride or scoff in disbelief? Partisan crap.

If you're gonna go on and blather about censorship, then where's the censorship?

The rest of your post is just aimless chatter about how Obama is a socialist. Yawn.

Just the usual pseudo-intellectual BS from PC.

Lol. Notice a lack of any substantive argument. It isn't censorship because you say so. How childish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Notice a lack of any substantive argument.

There is none from the reactionaries here at all.

Note that Yurt below will try to identify me with the reactionaries.

 

[Yurt]

Notice a lack of any substantive argument.

There is none from the reactionaries here at all.

at least you admit you do not have a substantive argument

i'm almost proud of you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, Yurt is a reactionary and he did above exactly what I said he would do in the post above.

 

[Yurt]

jake still won't back up his claims

all the while claiming he does

poor jake

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Yurt the reactionary continues to point out he has nothing to add of substance.

Yurt, you are so simplistic :lol

Now what do you have to add about Consensus?

 

[Yurt]

what do you want me to say about consensus mr. never backs up his claims that i asked him to