Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Despite neocon-instigated chaos and bloodshed across the Mideast (and now into Europe), Hillary Clinton continues to advocate more “regime change” wars with almost no fear from a marginalized anti-war movement.
Comments
Only Hillary Clinton (who comes in at 39 percent) is carrying the neocon banner proudly in the general election, advocating a U.S. “regime change” invasion of Syria – dressed up as “no-fly zones” and “safe zones” – while she also cheers on more hostilities toward nuclear-armed Russia.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 9:47am
WTF? Trump advocates ground war in Iraq and Syria, probably promoting nuclear option and melting sand to glass elsewhere. Anyone can be your friend, eh? All they have to do is disagree w Hillary at some point. It's all fungible.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 10:19am
Did this seem to you to be about supporting Trump?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 11:01am
I think the problem is that there are no simple solutions.Should the US do nothing as Assad kills civilians? Those fighting Assad are ruthless as well. Do nothing you are allowing genocide. Do something you support terrorists.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 11:20am
I'm sorry, I thought you read the piece you posted.
so starting off with the hyper-retarded framing of Trump speaking truth to power and driving the Mideast Peace Train, just not quite as hard as Bernie, I can dismiss the rest of the article as typical issue-fucking that pushes a reality-distorting meme at the expense of simple sanity.
Was there another takeaway I missed?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 11:59am
Yes. It appears you dismissed the rest of the article without reading it yourself.
I just skimmed the article again. It has at least 55 paragraphs. The first paragraph mentions Trump. The second paragraph mentions Sanders. I might have missed something but I don't believe either of those two names were mentioned again and it is quite obvious that neither of them are what the essay is about.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 12:27pm
Okay, some hyperbolic paranoid dream segment about Putin getting knocked off like Qaddafi ?(lumping Hillary in with the neocon fantasy football dreamers) with more concern trolling that we're starting a new world war with Russia, some rather stomach-churning comparison of peace activists with southern blacks and the civil rights movement, a rather doubtful paean to how great things would be if the controlled rightest media weren't controlled, and then a long complaint that Hillary said to solve Israel's 2 biggest security problems so we could demand adult behavior and limits from Israel in return. That got me pehaps halfway through. I assume it doesn't get any better - you really like this stuff?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 1:13pm
After about a million examples I am starting to pick up on a pattern in your responses when you are on the other side of an opinion. While you can make a great case when reality is weighted on your side and make pretty strong cases in whatever direction you choose when the evidence points in all quadrants, this response is typical of one end of your style spectrum. This is how you respond when you aint got nuthin’. Or else it is something you don't want to show.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 9:47pm
Huh? It's a stupid article with all sorts of glaring bias and silly opinions, conjectures and slurs. I just go through paragraph by paragraph noting the inanities of something you want me to take seriously, and then you say I ain't got nuttin'? Sorry I even wasted my time reading half of it. There are certainly more intelligent, persuasive sources for foreign policy (and I don't mean it has to be some old known periodical, personal blogs are fine) , and I'm certainly happy to see non-Hillary favoring analysis providing new insight done well. But this is just a superficial gripefest tossing in a grabbag of complaints. I get it - the author doesn't like Hillary. There's nothing else serious to take away. Find something new, solid, deep.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 11:47pm
I keep imploring people. Please let's face facts. Clinton is a very poor choice but Trump would be a horrific disaster. Clinton will not destroy our country. Trump very well might. In the end, Clinton's supporters saddled us with a dishonest, neo-con, neo-liberal. But she will respond to progressives. She will appoint justices who respect the rule of law. If only Clinton's acolytes would simply stop making excuses for her, we could work together.
by HSG on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 10:44am
Hal, the majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary. Sanders felt enough pressure at the platform meeting that an endorsement seems to be coming shortly. There are very few Sanders supporters who are not currently working together with Democrats. People have moved on, there is not going to be the Hillary bashing that some demand.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 10:41am
Hal, as a long time party member you should realize that it is you who must change your deviant thinking and join the true believers in the glorious cause of the Red Queen, resistance is futile. You've already made a good start in that direction with the statement that HRC won't destroy our country, she will need your and others help in that task but she will gleefully destroy other countries as we have already seen. Expecting the true believers to change their ways is ludicrous and to join them in electing HRC is to become one with them.
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 11:33am
Hal, you keep using that word "facts", but it doesn't mean what you think it means. Look up the word "opinion" in a dictionary if you own one - it may clear up a lot of misunderstanding. I hope.
And no, we didn't "saddle" you with anything - we just voted our preference and you whining like a bitch, pardon the sexism, doesn't change a thing. so far she's trouncing her opponent in rhetorIc, strategy and fundraising. We'll be fine. You, on the other hand, just may have a problem.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 12:09pm
Your preference was for a dishonest neo-con neo-lib. As long as you keep believing in her rather than questioning her claims and judgment we cannot hold her accountable to us.
by HSG on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 12:45pm
That's your problem. I don't see her as a "neocon" and think "neoliberal" is a poorly defined, shitty purity epithet. I can't hold Bernie accountable either - these people are grownups, they'll do what they do, and I can only vote for them and take them as they are.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 12:56pm
Now look . . .
Since Hal's already up over his head he just can't stop...
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 5:23pm
Classic!
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 5:26pm