Stonewall and Marc Lamb:

The Hatfields and McCoys of T4T!

On 2002-04-06 19:03, Susan Brombacher wrote:

Stonewall and Marc Lamb:

The Hatfields and McCoys of T4T!

Actually, I think that would be Rush and Lamb. I think those two ought to be hosting Crossfire.

On 2002-04-06 19:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-04-06 19:03, Susan Brombacher wrote:

Stonewall and Marc Lamb:

The Hatfields and McCoys of T4T!

Actually, I think that would be Rush and Lamb. I think those two ought to be hosting Crossfire.

But I don't know if the exchanges would seem fair. Marc speaks, Brian rebuts, Marc re-rebuts (Brian translates into plain english), Brian rebuts, etc...

MARC LAMB,

I have been summoned to deal with you. Word has spread that you are being a royal pain in the ass.

On 2002-04-06 19:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-04-06 19:03, Susan Brombacher wrote:

Stonewall and Marc Lamb:

The Hatfields and McCoys of T4T!

Actually, I think that would be Rush and Lamb. I think those two ought to be hosting Crossfire.

About a month or so ago, I would have said the exact same things about Eric Meese and Hopeful Cynic68. :lol:

On 2002-04-06 19:17, Preparation H wrote:
MARC LAMB,

I have been summoned to deal with you. Word has spread that you are being a royal pain in the ass.

LOLOLOLOL! :lol:

Stonewall and Marc Lamb: The Hatfields and McCoys of T4T!

Actually, I think that would be Rush and Lamb. I think those two ought to be hosting Crossfire.

About a month or so ago, I would have said the exact same things about Eric Meese and Hopeful Cynic68.

At least we wouldn't be speaking in "vague verse" as Marc does. The Crossfire audience would have as much trouble understanding what Marc is saying as Robert had. :smile:

Marc:

You profess to be a Marxist, of sorts, Mr. Reed. . . . First of all, I did not call Mr. Reed a "commie,"

Anyone besides me see the above as self-contradictory?

Niether was my post "snide and obnoxious and arrogant

Ah, but it was. Consider the following:

Mr. Reed, this is quite a "moral" indictment you have handed down on the America of the past fifty years! Is this the sort of stuff they teach in public schools these days? . . . While I don't really expect to get through to you about the real "spirit of American ideals," Mr. Reed, I'll give it a try anyway.

There you are. Snide, obnoxious, arrogant. In an earlier epoch, such as conservatives pine for, Robert would have challenged you to a duel. Or, wait, no, he's black; he couldn't have. Well, maybe some honorable white gentleman would do it on his behalf.

Secondly, the fact that the "Marxist 'experiment' in totalitarian dictatorship" has not ended yet, means that it still endangers the free peoples of this country and of this planet.

The fact that North Korea and Cuba are still Marxist does not mean that the Marxist experiment "still endangers free peoples," even allowing, arguendo that there are any free peoples to be endangered. Moreover, neither the fact that North Korea and Cuba are still Marxist, nor your paranoid delusions about the threat this poses to the "free peoples" of the planet, has anything whatsoever to do with Israel or Palestine, or their relationships with the United States, or any opinion expressed by Robert Reed on this thread, or AFAIK on any other thread.


Dragging the spectre of Communism into a discussion that has nothing at all to do with Communism, for purposes of discrediting someone else's argument, is red-baiting. So that's what you were doing.


And still are.

Having just read Mr. Reed trash what made this country great, and compare Bush to Yassir Arafat, struck me the wrong way.

Robert did not trash what made this country great, but rather encomized it; and frankly the comparison between Bush and Arafat isn't all that far-fetched. Both are would-be tyrants, both are two-faced deceivers. The main difference is one of scale, which accounts for the fact that Israeli soldiers are not currently besieging the White House and trying to expel Bush from his own country. The lesson being that if one wishes to be a tyrant, it's best to be the tyrant of a powerful country. Therein lies Arafat's mistake.

On 2002-04-07 00:38, Brian Rush wrote:
Marc:

You profess to be a Marxist, of sorts, Mr. Reed. . . . First of all, I did not call Mr. Reed a "commie,"

Anyone besides me see the above as self-contradictory?

Niether was my post "snide and obnoxious and arrogant

Ah, but it was. Consider the following:

Mr. Reed, this is quite a "moral" indictment you have handed down on the America of the past fifty years! Is this the sort of stuff they teach in public schools these days? . . . While I don't really expect to get through to you about the real "spirit of American ideals," Mr. Reed, I'll give it a try anyway.

There you are. Snide, obnoxious, arrogant. In an earlier epoch, such as conservatives pine for, Robert would have challenged you to a duel. Or, wait, no, he's black; he couldn't have. Well, maybe some honorable white gentleman would do it on his behalf....

Yep, Crossfire. The funny thing is that Marc plays a better Serpent Head (Carville) though.


Perhaps Point-Counterpoint would be better. Brian could then say, "Marc, you ignorant slut!"

Hey, guys, I'm just a middle-aged Boomer defending a promising Millennial against corruption by the Dark Side of the Force. :smile:

The Force be with YOU, Mr. Rush.

:grin:

Things are definitely heating up and coalescing in the Middle East now. Israel has rejected Bush's call for a pullout and is continuing to press forward. The Arab governments have adopted a resolution condemning Bush and accusing him of backing the Israeli invasion. Demonstrations in Arab countries call for response to Israel by "Arab armies," although some spokespersons express cynical views about what those armies are for (to support corrupt regimes, not to fight against enemies). Divisions are expanding and fault lines are opening in uncontrollable directions.


The only bit of evidence of a 3T nature from all of this is that the Arab governments could not agree (yet) on a measure that would embargo oil sales to Israeli allies.

On 2002-04-07 09:17, Brian Rush wrote:

Hey, guys, I'm just a middle-aged Boomer defending a promising Millennial against corruption by the Dark Side of the Force. :smile:

Brian, lest there be any confusion, I am on your side in this one. And I really would like to hear/watch you say, "Marc, you ignorant slut!" :lol:

On 2002-04-07 11:56, Brian Rush wrote:
Things are definitely heating up and coalescing in the Middle East now. Israel has rejected Bush's call for a pullout and is continuing to press forward. The Arab governments have adopted a resolution condemning Bush and accusing him of backing the Israeli invasion. Demonstrations in Arab countries call for response to Israel by "Arab armies," although some spokespersons express cynical views about what those armies are for (to support corrupt regimes, not to fight against enemies). Divisions are expanding and fault lines are opening in uncontrollable directions.


The only bit of evidence of a 3T nature from all of this is that the Arab governments could not agree (yet) on a measure that would embargo oil sales to Israeli allies.

Thankfully political reality and the Middle East being in a early 3T will prevent from this crisis from going further.

On 2002-04-07 11:56, Brian Rush wrote:
Demonstrations in Arab countries call for response to Israel by "Arab armies," although some spokespersons express cynical views about what those armies are for (to support corrupt regimes, not to fight against enemies).

The Arab governments if more democratic would be more hostile to Israel. If the Islamic world is divided and something new comes along with a united vision (in this case provided by commercial satellite Television looking for higher numbers with sensational news [dead Palestinians]) that internationalizes emotion and overides the several polities would this be a move toward Progress or Regress? Is it globalization from a non-Newscorp, GE, Disney, Viacom source?

War, war, war, I never got so sick of a word unless it was succession. If there's one more word about war I'll go in the house.

:lol:

On 2002-04-07 15:44, Tristan Jones wrote:

Thankfully political reality and the Middle East being in a early 3T will prevent from this crisis from going further.

If it goes as far as WWI it will be quite far enough to be quite unpleasant.

The second W is for that which will drive Ms. Primlani away; perhaps it should be Wok

as in the First World Wok. HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-07 16:08 ]</font>

On 2002-04-07 15:50, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
The Arab governments if more democratic would be more hostile to Israel.

Actually if the Arab countries were democratic they would not hate Israel as much. Turkey which is a democracy are allies with Israel.

Israel has far higher living standards than the Arab nations surrounding it and gives it's Arab minority more civil rights and freedoms which are enjoyed by other Arabs.

Envy can lead to intense hatred sometimes, human psychology is weird, however interesting at the same time

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-04-07 16:17 ]</font>

On 2002-04-07 16:05, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
If it goes as far as WWI it will be quite far enough to be quite unpleasant.

Virgil,

The Arabs agree on just two things, that god is great and all Jews must be killed, Apart from that nothing else.

Te dictatorships which border Israel have far more pressing concerns than fighting between Arabs and Jews in the Levant.

Anyway Syria, Jordan and Syria had their arses kicked by Israel three times. They would never dare declare war on Israel.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-04-07 16:16 ]</font>

On 2002-04-07 16:11, Tristan Jones wrote:

Anyway Syria, Jordan and Syria had their arses kicked by Israel three times. They would never dare declare *** on Israel.

They needn't declare anything just fuel the fires of hate. Israel is quite up to the pre-emptive strike. HTH (notice no Woks)

Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason that the Arab oil producing countries haven't punished us with an embargo is that it might end up hurting them much more than it would hurt us?
They aren't the only source of petroleum on the planet that we could buy from, and if they angered us sufficiently we might not return very quickly as customers.
Also, about six months ago there was an interview with the Saudi prince who is in charge of their economy and he was quite gloomy about the future of their economy beyond about five years from now. He felt that there would be an ever increasing development of things like hybrid cars and fuel cells and a demand for more fuel economy and that this would decrease revenues from petroleum.
No matter where different Americans stand on the "Who's right and who's wrong in the Palestine/Israel mess", I think most people would be angry at the Arabs for an oil embargo that attempted to tell us what to do. I personally would just *love* for us to get clear of the Arab nations' hold on us. An embargo just might provide the conditions to force the Bush administration into some kind of active support of energy independence.
I know that alot of the people who post here prefer the negative viewpoint, the all is lost, there's no hope outlook, but I see at least the possibility that something positive could come out of this awful mess.
Go ahead and make your damned embargo! We'll survive and we'll move on.

On 2002-04-07 16:18, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
They needn't declare anything just fuel the fires of hate. Israel is quite up to the pre-emptive strike. HTH (notice no Woks)

Israel has the right to defend herself from terrorists who kill people in pizza palors or hotels.

"The public "mood" in 1917-1920 was not much different from today's sudden shift." --Marc Lamb (September 16, 2001)


<FONT SIZE="-1">Sunday April 7, 2002</FONT>
From The New York Times

<FONT SIZE="+1">Jay Gatsby Is a Man for Our Times</FONT>

Some quotes:

"Gatsby's powerful ability to speak to our times is driven home by the latest issue of Book magazine, in which a panel of literary experts, asked to name the Top 100 fictional characters since 1900, decisively chose F. Scott Fitzgerald's jazz-era rogue as No. 1."

"Beneath the carefree exterior, however, Gatsby understands just how sad and dark a place the world can be. Fitzgerald, who was writing in the same bleak post-World War I literary environment that produced T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," suggests that Gatsby served in the carnage-filled battlefields of France."

"In today's increasingly disturbing world, home to Al Qaeda cells and suicide bombers, offshore sham partnerships and document-shredding auditors, the grim backdrop against which Gatsby's life plays out feels depressingly right."

More...




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-07 17:32 ]</font>

Do Arabs want to kill Jews? I don't know, but this statement by Tristan seems a bit exaggerated. I also think Arabs would be more accomodating if Isreal did not occupy and oppress the lands rightfully belonging to Arab peoples. True, terrorist attacks on Isreali civilians are abhorrent and must be stopped. So is occupation, oppression, taking of lands and state terrorism-- all of which is practiced by Isreal. There will not be peace until both sides stop behaving like foolish monsters who want all or nothing.

The solution is simple and clear-cut. The emotions and indoctrinated revenge cycles are not. The problem is only to do with the latter.

If these people really want peace, they can have it overnight. Just agree to two secure states within the 1967 borders, with international control of the Temple Mount; no right of return to previous ownership of land, but right to immigrate at your own expense to the other state to live under that state's laws.