Advertisement
What is one to do after you realize that one of the rightwing editors on Human Events that you've been reading to do opposition research turns out to be a friend from a long time ago that you went to high school with? I wish I could say this wasn't the case, but it is...
www.humanevents.com/search.php
www.humanevents.com/search.php
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, January 26, 2009 - 2:31 PMit turns out that some people I went to high school with are (still) assholes.
so it goes... Either don't tell them you know them, or do tell them and try to remain civil, unless you don't care to be friends anymore/again, then tear 'em a new one! -
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, January 26, 2009 - 2:55 PMWell, let me tell you a little bit about what this guy used to be like (and probably still is, underneath the veneer)...
Long haired hippie, stoner, wearing baggy sweat pants... drummer dude, into Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, etc... went to see Guns N' Roses in Tokyo back in the day... partied out with us during our graduation... drinking, pot smoking, laughing... he was two years younger than me... hung out during college, wrote letters... total jokster and prankster... I remember him wearing this funky hippie hat, going into the gas station and talking peace with the cash register guy...
And now he is a neoconservative who bashes the left... huh? But then again, Ann Coulter was the same way, remember? I definitely see a pattern here...
-
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, January 26, 2009 - 4:14 PM
<Re: Burnout
Tue, January 6, 2009 - 4:34 PM
I'm kinda burned out too. That's why I've been concentrating on the Republican side, doing covert ops on their websites, trying to make sure they can't regroup! lol >
Maple,
Put your spy think cap on! :-) -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 1:25 AMI just remembered another episode with this fella...
We were in this 'disco' in Tokyo... smoking hash in the bathroom... we were in one of the bathroom stalls sucking out of a flattened coke can with holes pricked on the 'up' side (anyone ever do this?)... after a while, we suspect there is a guy waiting to use the bathroom... so I get down on all fours and look underneath the stall... and I see a dude's feet... so we decide to pretend that he we were puking... so we flush and then I help 'carry' my friend out, pretending he was puking and I was helping him out... funny...
I wonder what Human Events would think about this if they knew? Ah, they probably wouldn't care. They probably all smoked too much marijuana in their youth anyway... lol
-
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:19 AMweed in a stall is too tame, they were doing coke off congressional interns bare asses...
and yes, I have used a crushed soda can before too. Those were NOT the good old days... ;) -
-
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:38 AMYou know, what irks me the most about all this, is him lambasting multiculturalism. I mean, hello??? He was an expatriate in Japan for crying out loud, and married a Russian wife!!! If that's not multiculturalism, then what is???
Okay, he means those non Western third world country types. But seriously, both Japan and Russia only nominally qualify as Western countries. True, they have incorporated elements of Western culture, but they are still culturally very different. -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 3:38 PMYeah exactly, the cry against multiculturalism isn't that you look different or started somewhere different, it's your unwillingness to conform to the most vanilla, starbucks drinking, middle of the road, banana republic khaki pants wearing, I love Larry King plebe...
-
-
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 4:40 PMWhen you have an in with a would be enemy it's always best to meet on the good ground you had, becuase after all the person means so much more than the issue and more so you can persway through friendship but not through oppostion I have had this encounter too, humans are pretty simple, we want to everyone to agree with us but when you have a friend from way back you know their soul, so to speak, and you got to support that, love goes a lot further than hate, but of course if there idealogy over rides there civilness, maturity is still stronger than brattdom, to change the mind (even our own minds we have to be subliminal, Like Erickson: the hypnosis expert all the N.L.P. freaks worship, republican or democrat). -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 4:46 PMOh wait now I have read all the post on this and know the history of you and him, actually it sounds like you can bust his chops.
I like this whole spying thing I am gonna get up on some of that game!
But what site should I infiltrate? -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 5:52 PMI don't mind people changing their political views. It's not like I have any choice in the matter anyway. But when you see someone bounce from one extreme to another, there is usually something serious going on underneath. I also forgot to mention that this guy CHANGED his last name. Now I'm beginning to realize that he underwent a major transformation after college, when he went to live in Eastern Europe. He is also fixated on the history of Russia and Soviet communism and now thinks he is on some mission to stop the spread of socialism. Then he came back with a Russian wife and got a PhD, and now he's a neoconservative. I guess he fits the stereotype, as he is Jewish. But my God, what a radical transformation. And now it makes sense why he was so tight lipped when we exchanged emails a few years ago. No mention of his political transformation. He could have said that he now espouses a radically different world view, but I guess he'd rather just stay incognito. He did come up with a new identity anyway. When I suggested we have coffee the next time I visit DC, he ignored it. Now I know why. He probably guesses that his new identity won't mesh too well with most of the people he knew from the past. After all, I am now the "enemy." I am the very thing he is railing against. Nonconformist, long haired, multiculturalist. And by the way, so was he (and still is underneath the veneer, in my opinion). By the way, I did hear rumors about his sister being molested and now that I think back, I did sense some dysfunctionality and even dissociation. Like, both he and his sister denied some past events even just a few years after they happened. And coming from a family of abuse myself where my mom was friends with his mom, I would be willing to bet he comes from a majorly screwed up family as well. And he apparently linked his oppressor(s) with socialism and liberalism. There is a part of me that sort of gets this, as I remember some of my libertarian views in my twenties. It's first many years later after I've studied psychology and been through therapy that I've realized how much your world view is affected by your family life, which of course includes politics. I think one day he got up and decided the way to save himself is to be "strict" on himself and become a Republican. We've all heard this story like a million times, right? But shit, to live your whole life like this, being both master and slave and whipping yourself, and embracing an extremist philosophy in order to "save" yourself, holding yourself together... There was just no way I was going to do something like that. Besides, I was always searching for Truth, and if I came across something and tried it and it didn't help out, I would move on. I never stopped looking. Luckily, I eventually stumbled on psychology. But I guess he never did. His sister I heard moved to Israel and became a devout Jew, so you can see a pattern here. I think it's so sad when peoples lives are defined by what others did to them. That's one of the reasons why I never stayed with anything radical for too long. At some point you just realize it's not worth fighting this "enemy" out there which is just a projection of your fears from the past. -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 9:37 PMYes, and Senator Obama is President Obama because some voters changed their minds and voted Democrat.
My high school friends kept their hair short or clean long, wore chino trousers, belts, and casual shirts (frat brother types)... they still are a group with some of them solid blue Democrats and some Naders. Me I was a Goldwater (Hillary was too, :-) Republican). Long-hair, khaki military trousers with the big pockets ($00.25), anti-war (remember Democrats were the War Mongers and Nixon the Peace Maker). I vote for the winner each chance. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama. ( Reagan and other peace lovers ended the Democrat Cold War and the Democrat Hot Wars in Asia.)
Me am a shaman/pagan, church going, ayn rand economics, healer, natureman, city immigrant, psychic, thinker, artist, failed hippy, wannabe beatnik, sociopath nut case!
Me am what me am I'm popeye the sailor man. Bugs Bunny-- whatz up Doc??.
I hated Johnson! When I heard at school the news that Kennedy was shot and killed.... I cried out ohhh f#"%&&&ck Johnson is Prezzzzzident.
Obama will be a great President because he is among those human beings who are talented and competent people that are free free free at last. -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 9:46 PMYou voted for Dubya? eeeeeewwwwwww -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:04 PMI have always voted for the winner! :-) I feel sorry for you Progressives.... neo conservative/progressive Bush has spent all the money, nationalized the debt, banks, and goes away leaving Peace not yet in Iraq and Afganistan/Pakistan.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:09 PMHow could you vote for that bumbling idiot... -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:13 PMGore and Kerry were well uh uh uh... i did vote Obama.
-
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:16 PMYou could have voted third party... -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 11:03 PMlike I say I always vote for the winner. I agree with some third party ideas but .... the people are the power and most people vote within the system!!
Bush abandoned his principles -- avoid war except if attacked, small government, spend wisely ... he went left --- spend spend spend war war war bigger bigger bigger government....
The US Constitution chose twoparty system check and balance --- judicial, legislative, and executive.
I think Obama is for the now year! Bush is over... game is over. -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 11:43 PMBush didn't go left, you kidding me? He went to the far right. If he went left, progressives would have applauded him. Instead, Jesus whispered into his ear that he had to go bomb Iraq. When's the last time you remember a Democrat hearing voices telling him to go to war?
This small vs. big government debate is bullshit. The problem is conservatives never include the military when they talk of government, but it is. Reagan built up the military, remember? That's big government. It's CONSERVATIVE big government.
And I'm sorry to tell you, but war belongs to the right. How many anti-war people do you know on the right? Only the libertarians. How may pro-war hawks do you know on the left? Only the ones like Hillary Clinton, who are really conservative anyway. Remember Desert Storm? How many Democrats voted to authorize it? Not many (Al Gore was one if not the only one).
And nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about parties. In fact, the Founding Fathers never imagined the country to be run by parties. That first came later. -
-
Re: Quandary
Wed, January 28, 2009 - 8:26 AMyes, Bush and the Democrat congress were not conservative they initiated and paid for war.... spent spent spent borrowed borrowed borrowed voted to legalize Shock and Awe.... the federal government now controls banking and real estate.... Fanny Mae and Freddie Mae, and other bureacrats the Community Redevelopment Act, the CRA, RDA... the free market system is well under stress... it goes on and on.
Simple history:
WW I Wilson, WWII Roosevelt Korea War Truman Cold War Truman Viet Nam War Kennedy and Johnson all Democrats!
Bosnia and Yugoslavia Clinton
Facts Eisenhower ended the Korean War... Nixon/Ford the Viet Nam War... Ronald Reagan the Cold War...
Bush Iraq 4 day War... Bush Afganistan Iraq War on Terrorism were all paid for by Democrats in Congress.
Anti-war people in the US have always fell face down in the mud, . they are of no importance period. Muhammad Ali and Obama are the exception not the rule.
Yes, and both Bush were judged out by the voters.
You are right... I think the Federalist Papers had something to say about factions... the fact is that most elections federal, state and local voter choose out of two party candidates.
He did not go left, he simply acted left... spend, borrow, increase government power, war, destroy the capitalist system...
Now Democrat Obama can end the two wars, the war on the US Constitution AKA the war on terror, The Isreali and Palestine War started in the Truman Administration! I trust Obama come hell or high water.
Yes, Reagan did sign the Budgets passed by the Democrat Congress!
Reagan left with a spotty record.... :-) but not bad!
-
-
Re: Quandary
Wed, January 28, 2009 - 9:57 AM"Simple history:
WW I Wilson, WWII Roosevelt Korea War Truman Cold War Truman Viet Nam War Kennedy and Johnson all Democrats!
Bosnia and Yugoslavia Clinton "
Uhh? So would you rather have America not joining in WWII after the Japanese attacked? I would like to know what you would have done as president.
It's true that wars have been fought and declared under previous Democratic administrations. But it has happened under Republican administrations as well. But when Republicans do it, you just claim they acted left.
How about going back to the very first Republican, Abraham Lincoln. He started the Civil War. Oops. You can't tell me he is not a real Republican or that he acted left.
Not to mention of course, that the modern concept of left and right first arose after Reagan. There was a major reallignment that happened after 1980. It used to be that Southern conservatives were part of the left, because of their opposition to the Civil War. But Reagan destroyed the New Deal coalition and brought about what we have today.
And the Israeli Palestinian conflict was not "started" by Truman. Jeez. Zionism started long before and Jews were moving to what is modern day Israel during the British Mandate. So they declare independence during a Democratic administration and that somehow makes us the initiates of war? WTF?
And seriously, screw laissez faire capitalism! What good has it done? Look at where it got us.
Anyway, you only include "evidence" that fits into your political theory and reject it if doesn't. You ignored my points about the military being part of the government and Democrats voting against Desert Storm. You start with theory and then fit reality into it. I would suggest you go the other way, where you create a model based on reality.
It is also hypocritical to complain about Bush and then voting for him. Going along with whatever the majority does is acting like sheep. If you want to let your voice be heard, then vote with your heart. Otherwise, you are really part of the problem and not the solution.
So if Obama can end the conflicts in the Middle East, doesn't that make him not a Democrat by your definition? Your designation of what is right and left is not what is commonly understood in political science. -
-
Re: Quandary
Wed, January 28, 2009 - 10:04 AMyou're braver than me Maple, so far I've stayed out of this conversation because it doesn't make any sense to me... -
-
Re: Quandary
Wed, January 28, 2009 - 10:20 AMlol It sounds like Goldwater Republicanism (i.e. libertarianism) to me. It's definitely not what is known as conservatism today by the mainstream.
Oh, and Goldwater lost big time. True, some of his ideas have been incorporated into the party, but his ideas are only a small subset. Goldwater hated the Religious Right but Regan brought them in. And the isolationist streak that existed in the GOP (the so-called paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan) is now dead and gone. It ended with Bush I a long time ago.
So to keep using an old and flawed model for left/right designation when the political landscape has so drastically changed is downright disingenuous...
-
-
Re: Quandary
Thu, January 29, 2009 - 2:10 AM<Not to mention of course, that the modern concept of left and right first arose after Reagan. There was a major reallignment that happened after 1980. It used to be that Southern conservatives were part of the left, because of their opposition to the Civil War. But Reagan destroyed the New Deal coalition and brought about what we have today.>
Yes, Goldwater lost. He was defeated by southern democrat Johnson, who was Kennedy's vice president.
The solid south (dixiecrats) (democrats) was taken away by George Wallace (democrat).
Nixon named the new republicans/former democrats the silent majority.
IMO, Reagan absorbed and invited in new voters, he did not destroy the New Deal coalition they were on the loose. He welcomed Democrats with open arms! and all the Goldwater voters, many Wallace voters, the Silent majority and other independents. Many voters were a bit in a bad mood with their money cheapend by the Carter stagflation, high unemployment, recession. Reagan won in a landslide not the Republican Party.
Reagan attracted evangelicals but not Jewish and Catholic.
Congress stayed Democrat so Reagan could only spend Democrat money.
Yes, Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war. I am speaking non-judgmentally the facts of history who was President when wars began wars and who was President that ended wars. Conservatives believe that when attacked it is right to defend and to win.
Republican President wars: Lincoln, Bush, Bush
Republican President peace: Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan
Democrat President war: Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton
Democrat President peace: Truman
-
-
Re: Quandary
Thu, January 29, 2009 - 8:30 AMPat Buchanan who was working with Reagan at the time has talked at great lengths about how he and Reagan purposely crafted a plan to wreck the New Deal coalition. True, it was already weak, because of the Democrats giving in to the demands of the Civil Rights movement. But they explicitly wanted to break it so they could form a new coalition based on social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and defense conservatives, now known as the three pillars of conservatism. Libertarians always mistakenly believe that conservatism is only about fiscal policy but it isn't. It also includes Christian fundamentalists and defense hawks. Quite frankly, you need all three groups to get enough votes to win. This fact cannot be denied. -
-
Re: Quandary
Thu, January 29, 2009 - 12:27 PMSheee-it, me get into this conversation? No way, Maple! As far as I'm concerned, there is very little difference between the democrats and republicans as they are both completely owned by Eisenhower's military/industrial complex anyway. Splitting hairs on which started (or got involved in) which fucking war makes very little sense because BOTH get large campaign donations from the "defense" industries.
Gotta love that term, defense industries. hahahhaahaha One fucking trillion dollars a year on "defense." Madness, insanity, or just plain greedy stupidity?
And honestly, I have exactly ZERO contact with anyone from my childhood. Not one single person prior to 1977 and I was 23 years old then! My best friend over on windward side of Oah'u started following me around out surfing then being as I always got all the best waves... So I am certainly not qualified to comment on the dos/don'ts of old high school friends conversion to being a fascist!
Besides which I didn't go to fucking high school. My family fell apart by the time I hit tenth grade and I was on the beach at that point. High school was babysitting, boring, as I had a junior in college reading level by 7th grade and had read all the San Diego State University textbooks that my parents brought home... High school was a joke. Took me 16 years to go back and get a university degree.
And tomorrow I go to town to check mail etc and stop by the bookstore/deli to visit...ahahahahahaha fuck the nazis bastards!
-
-
Re: Quandary
Thu, January 29, 2009 - 12:34 PMTrue to his form, Seal hates 'em all. lol
So when are you going to score with that chick? -
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, February 2, 2009 - 9:57 AM"So when are you going to score with that chick? "
This is the only real question here. -
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, February 2, 2009 - 12:15 PMYou boyz are bad. SCORE? Hell, I just like sitting and talking with her. Intelligence is not to be dismissed lightly! Too many ignorant uneducated rural fluffy bunnies that bore me to death around here...or the 300 pounders with five kids looking for a daddy that doesn't toot meth.
And besides, she smells good. -
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, February 2, 2009 - 12:22 PMbullshit
You were talking about manipulating labias and multiple orgasms a short while ago, remember? -
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, February 2, 2009 - 1:18 PMthe step from Voltaire to labia is small step indeed. -
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, February 2, 2009 - 8:21 PMLet's be honest here, what are the odds? Grim to nothing? HA! Man, I know I'm an old guy now and a lifetime spent outdoors in the ocean or on the snow...
Now if she so happens to find this old surfer/snowboarder even somewhat attractive...I haven't dated anyone in five years because there just hasn't been anyone that sparked since I moved here. Much healthier to keep it at a friend level if there isn't any spark. I do have a few female friends that I can visit with and be comfortable up here,
Not that I am all that social anymore and it's really hard to meet people when one isn't "out there" in the world all that much. Between living out here in the mountains with my work/shop on the property and the odds of "meeting" someone while snowboarding my local hill or grocery shopping or visiting with the few friends I've made in the last 4 1/2 years are pretty long I would guess.
It's just nice to be able to sit with a lady and talk about all sorts of different subjects and actually have her reply knowing about the subject being discussed and actually having an opinion and knowledge of it? Whoa, been a while. Her kids are adults (as are my stepkids) so there isn't the "looking for a dad" thing, either. As it is, I've been talking with her off and on for a year or two when we bump into each other at the used bookstore/deli (she's friends with the co-owner) but it changed somehow from just chatting to really talking sitting at a table a couple weeks ago.
But ahhhh, labias are so much fun (more fun than Voltaire!). LOL
Big sigh. I'm almost chicken in a way since I'm WAY the fuck out of practice. I've dated exactly one woman since I seperated in 2000 and divorced in 04. It was fun but it wasn't permanent.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 9:59 PMI can relate I grew up in and among a large number who lived for better or worse, alcoholics, people who loved them, gamblers, spenders, over-workers, sex-xyz, ragers, whiners...
I too used hypnosis, dream training, psychology... just to get up and out to see what is ...
Focus on the Family was Fascist Family... f@ck that group! 12 steps... never get well sickos thanks but time to move on! I developed my own rational recovery method: just say NO! . I am blessed with many cohorts and types of cohorts. I do not walk on my path alone.
Angels here and Angels there... -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:02 PMFocus on the Family sucks. And so does 12 steps. I quit on my own. You don't need any of that mumbo jumbo crap. You have to really want to quit anyway. Many people just like the THOUGHT of quitting, but don't want to ACTUALLY quit. That's the problem. You also need to find alternative outlets for times of stress, otherwise you'll go back once you hit a bump. It's really not all that hard if you just approach it with a plan and stick to it. But like I said, that depends on really wanting to. Nothing can substitute for that. No program in the world is going to work if you don't really want to quit. -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:10 PMme, too. i am 22 years clean and sober... and 6 years without 12 steps. I used the 12 steps for social network... but I got kicked out! It is crazy but true! I also was kicked out of Boy Scouts....
That is why we called it Fascist Family . :-) -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:48 PMi got off to a start at my first AA meeting...
last week i recalled an experience at my first AA meeting... at the end we were asked to stand up and hold hands in a circle, so i joined in... then someone started with... to this day i recall hearing these words.... our father who art in heaven hallowed be they name.... i became shocked or something, a strong feeling came up from the bottom of my feet ... i screamed out .... whaaaaaaaaaathef@@@@ck is thaaaaaaaat...
someone came up after the close and said 'keep coming back it works.' -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 10:50 PMThey always say that: "Keep coming back, it works, it works!"
The fucking lamest thing I've ever heard...
-
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, January 27, 2009 - 11:09 PMthat is why some take it to heart... go out drink and come back... hee hee hee.
It works. It works. The it is not specified with a referent. I did not understand "it".
I am happy that our minds seem to jive with 12vy stuff.... :-)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Quandary
Wed, January 28, 2009 - 9:06 AM"I think one day he got up and decided the way to save himself is to be "strict" on himself and become a Republican. We've all heard this story like a million times, right? But shit, to live your whole life like this, being both master and slave and whipping yourself, and embracing an extremist philosophy in order to "save" yourself, holding yourself together..."
This is what leads to doing blow off congressional interns' asses... -
-
Re: Quandary
Wed, January 28, 2009 - 6:45 PMWhat is wrong with doing blow off of congressional wimen asses? -
-
Re: Quandary
Mon, February 2, 2009 - 9:56 AMyou and I both know the bigger the homophobic rhetoric the bigger the homo... keep your heterosexual fantasies out of my republican bashing jokes. ;P -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Quandary
Mon, February 2, 2009 - 9:49 PMYou seem to be really up set, I didn't mean to upset your sexuality, these were not my fantacies, I was joking too, gay/strait doesn't have anything to do with it, I'll say what I want, I have my own judgement. -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, February 3, 2009 - 11:29 AMI "seem" to be really upset? It was a joke. Not sure where you're reaching about my sexuality, but whatevs, sorry if the republican bashing wasn't up your alley. -
-
Re: Quandary
Tue, February 3, 2009 - 11:59 AMNo huhu, no big deal, let the mis-understanding go.
And Maple, I had to just laugh at that web link... am I old enough to enter? ahahahhaha
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-