Of course, as Christian religious extremists who demonize gays, they are logical allies of our president and his party....
Hey, at LEAST as fair as your comment, dude.
Except that, like the Dems, they're hoping for thousands of US troops to be killed. Bush and the Repubs aren't.
Ah. So not wanting the troops to go in the first place=wanting them to die? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the people who sent the troops there with inadequate planning, who declared mission accomplished when it emphatically and obviously wasn't, who lied to us consistently (did you think the insurgency was in its last throes when the VP said it was? If yes, how many neurons do you have? Count on just one hand should do it.)--that THOSE people either want large numbers of our troops to die, or arranged for it to happen unwittingly. Either case, this is all over a Republican fuck-up. If more die, and I and every dem I know hopes they get home safe, but if more die, there blood is not on our hands...but take a look at the president's and Cheney's and Wolfowitz's and Rumsfeld's and Feith's and Hadley's...those hands would take Lady MacBeth and a team of scrubbers to get the blood off.
It makes sense to say that the Dem apparatchiks who sent them with their blessing and now make political hay out of their deaths are closely associated with this church of inbred jackasses.
You may want them home safe, but the politicians you vote for savor every drop of blood. Deal with it.
It's t-i-c, but uncomfortably close to the truth for you, no?
t-i-c = tongue-in-cheek.
You think wrong. Unlike you, I remember what happened when American troops returned from Vietnam. Then the Left's "support" for the troops became plain in the screaming and spitting.
I bloodied my knuckles on more than a couple of hippies then. I'll do the same again.
Meanwhile, JD, continue in your dream world. One day reality will spit in your face.
jd,
Unfortunately, The Dread Pundit Bluto is actually more right than he's giving himself credit for. Phelps was actually a long-time political ally of...Al Gore.
This is confirmed here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?
ARTICLE_ID=15559) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev._Fred_Phelps).
The author didn't look very hard, and of course there was no reporting on it. The MSM has just successfully won a propaganda war for the North. They weren't about to expose their allies.
Obviously, I'm not going to give details of previous acts that could be characterized as...felonious assault, but the babyburner taunts and spitting did occur several times in my presence. As the son of a disabled WWII vet I made sure that retribution was swift. And satisfying.
Maybe your side needs relearn some old lessons from the street. Words have consequences. Sometimes those consequences take the form of a left hook to the kisser.
Not hostile today? The old hippies are in their fifties now; they didn't all die. the smart ones have repented and try not to think about how they were gulled so easily in their youth.
You don't consider Joel Stein to be on the Left? Probably news to him.
Either you're a liar, jd, or the author is. Head on over to The Cookshack. You can find it on the Armada blogroll. Read Cookie's post about his welcome home.
Then shut yer own piehole, sonny, 'cause ye doesn't have a clue.
I'll let Cookie know you think he's a liar.
Myself, I think the author of the book is a liar, trying to rewrite cultural history, because he or she is ashamed of the behavior of his/her compadres.
By the author's logic the case could be made that any act of say, racism, that occurs but hasn't been recorded in the media didn't actually happen. After all, the only people who would be wiling to talk about it would be the victims - the perpetrators would now be ashamed and have who wants to admit to being that big an asshole? Thus the author could say that the acts didn't occur because only the victims were reporting them and there was no corroboration from the accuseds.
In other words, jd, your author is a lying sack of shit.
I've already documented it, with my own eyewitness recollection. As I've received email death threats from suspected jihadis following my reports on 357Hosting and theMohammed cartoons, I will continue to blog aononymously, and will not give details of my personal life that could endanger my family.
Besides, this occurred long before half of your intelligence ran down your daddy's leg and dripped on the whorehouse floor - an occurrence made obvious by the fact that you didn't bother to read my racism analogy before replying.
If you had, you wouldn't have just made such a fool of yourself.
Oh, and jd? Notice that I'm capable of responding to your trolling while still researching and posting. Your mission to keep the truth from getting out is failing.
Btw, I warned Cookie that you might make an appearance at his blog:
"Fair warning: jd is a George Mason U. student who evidently has nothing to do but post all day long. It's like having an ugly puppy that farts all the time follow you around."
jd, you stupid sack of shit (sorry about insulting your mommy, I'm sure she wasn't a two-bit crackwhore, but probably second or third tier - six-bits). I'm not afraid of hippies tracking me down. I am afraid of al Qaeda cells within comfortable driving distance of my home.
I'm hoping to visit family members in Maryland this summer. Arlington is an easy drive from there. Why don't you post your real name, address,and phone number here so that I can look you up and give you the chance to call me a liar to my face?
C'mon, jd, squeak up.
Oh, jd, some helpful advice. My sabumnim (Tae Kwon Do master/teacher) once told me before a match that, in a fight, the man who loses his temper is already half-defeated.
I pass Master Chong's wisdom on to you free of charge.
Misspent youth, and the incidents I wrote about occurred in the seventies, not the sixties. Cookie is a bit older than I am.
But I still demand that you post your personal info here. The Pirate Armada only acts online. You have nothing to fear from them.
You seem to be under the illusion that I value your opinion of me. I'll share another little gem with you. When I was twenty, my advisor, a rather flamboyant bisexual, convinced me that the only opinion of myself that mattered was my own. That one nugget was worth all the tuition money.
Hint: I never lose my temper when posting, but I'm not above provoking someone else into losing theirs, or returning gratuitous insults.
Come on jd; one should never urge another to do something one isn't willing to do oneself. Post that personal info right here and now.
As Grand Admiral of The Pirate Armada I guarantee that you have nothing to fear from them.
I'm also fascinated by the fact that you were upset by having your mother called a whore, but the implication that your father is a whoremonger didn't seem to faze you.
I'd like to analyze that. How would you characterize your relationship with your father.
And by the way, I'd like you to document your assertion that your mother is a "...good, decent, honest woman...". I'm afraid your word isn't enough for me. Do you have any corroboration?
I was born near the end of 1955, jd. Do the math, and understand that hostility against American soldiers didn't suddenly end in 1973.
Clean living, plus mass consumption of alcohol and cigarettes are responsible for my youthful appearance. I'm not bald, I shave my head.
The photo that formerly graced these pages was taken in August, 2004, in the Hollywood Hills. I mention this in case you intend to accuse me of using a decades-old photo.
Well, you paint a rosy picture of your family of origin, but how can you document it to my satisfaction?
I still suspect that you've simply created a rich fantasy life to mask the pain of being abandoned as an infant.
And my extra-legal activity wasn't restricted to hippies who spat on vets. There were also hippies who engaged veteran friends in arguments, or called them "babyburners" - and quite frankly, some people who weren't hippies at all but simply pissed me off. Growing up in the rural area that I did; fighting was part of OUR culture.
Perhaps that's why I had reconstructive surgery on my nose in 1988. The doctor told me that it had been broken at least six times...
Well, all I care about is your highly questionable claim that you beat up hippies who spat on returning vets. I never said you didn't get into a lot of fights. I said it was a large national myth that vets were spit on. And I think I've succeeded in getting you to retreat from that claim, or at least fail to provide any documentation worth noting, and shot holes in your BS excuses for not doing so.
We'll see if you are brave enough to meet me this summer. After all, I might take a photo and give it to Al Qaeda...or have you followed from our meeting...because you are SOOOO IMPORTANT that they would single you out from the 5 million conservative bloggers...sheesh.
And my family was far from perfect, but they are very real. Sometimes too real!
My nose has been broken zero times, though. You have me, uh...beat on that tally.
Think logically, dude. If Al Qaeda wanted to kill a conservative blogger, they'd go after Instapundit or Hugh Hewitt, or any of the 100,000 bloggers above you in the rankings. They don't have unlimited resources. And, remember--they don't make these fine distinctions between liberal and conservative that we do. They have the same preferences that we do between brown and black ants--who cares? We are all murdering Americans to those guys, except maybe a few of their muslim extremist friends in this country. They attacked us when WJC was prez, and they attacked us when GWB was prez. They hate Americans (largely because of our foreign policy, which until recently was mostly bipartisan in their region).
jd, always take it seriously when someone takes the time to email a death threat, or mention you on jihadi forums.
I know you think you're immortal now, but you'll learn differently soon enough.
You question my veracity about my youth? Gee, you have no idea how awful that makes me feel, or might, if I weren't in the middle of a Malkin-lanche right now.
I didn't question your veracity on the 1955, after you said it! I was trying to compliment you! Calm down there, cowboy.
Actually, seriously, if you do take a death threat seriously from some anonymous emailer like that, it helps me understand why DHS has been such a clusterfuck. If that's all it takes to raise your personal threat level to Red, so that you won't detail an event 35 years ago...yup, that's par for the course over at DHS.
There is NO way that providing some details about the several times you beat hippies who spit on vets could identify you today. Therefore, I'm led to conclude that the only reason is that it is a huge malodorous pile of bullshit. This is particularly evident since this is your SECOND bullshit excuse for not posting. What is your third? Uh...PTSD? Fear of typing?
Well jd, I hope you have a happy life, though odds are it may be short, unless you learn.
I'm not talking about a single anonymous email. That's clear from the previous comments I've made.
And let me make this a little clearer for you. I grew up in a hamlet of 361 souls. Urban dwellers have no conception of the intimacy of personal knowledge that exists in such a place. Too many clues WILL identify me to folks I knew then, and that's the path to no longer being able to blog anonymously.
DHS a clusterfuck? Well maybe, but a rather helpful clusterfuck that has played its role in preventing further attacks on US soil.
Btw, Cookie's still waiting for you to come call him a liar.
Look, I can only handle offering corrections to crazy afactual assertions at one minor rightwing blog at a time!
I actually went to his site, but didn't want to register to comment. I also don't like that all comments must be approved by Cookie. I prefer your open debate forum. If Cookie wants to give more details, he can damn well come here.
Still, I do respect the latest excuse for not giving documentation more than the others. It almost makes sense, although trust me, your life is NOT in danger. Sheesh.
Trust my safety and my family's to an undergrad's uneducated opinion? Hahaha...yeah, that's going to happen on the day that monkeys fly our of your ass, jd. But thanks for the laugh.
It just doesn't make sense. Al Qaeda is going to suddenly go after an individual in this country, for the first time. And of all the people they pick, they are going to pick some obscure NY blogger with 25 regular readers? Please. This is textbook delusions of grandeur. Wake up and smell the self-importance.
While AQ might issue some sort of general fatwah, the real danger is from unbalanced AQ sympathizers.
You're at the stage where you have trouble with abstract thought, aren't you?
And btw, have any monkeys flown out of your ass yet?
Hey Mr. Bluto...just got done reading the exchange with yourself and this "jd"...whoever he is...(notice I can't get directly back to him except though you). "jd"...you sound young so I'll pass on responding to comments regarding things that DID happen before your time. Like the internet...don't believe everything you read in print. Whoever wrote that these incidents did not happen didn't know dittely shit about what he was talking about. They were like bad dreams...something like you...BTW...do you do anything at all with your life other than spend all day corresponding (anonymously) to various blogs...?
Is this a Jane Fonda book, jd?
Nope. It's focused only on whether anyone was spit on. The main point is--although he can't find any cases--even if he can find a couple, the book succeeds in showing that it wasn't this mass occurrence, the way it has become in the popular mind. It is a urban myth, something so widely believed, but when you really think about it--makes no sense. A hippy spits on a marine? How's that movie going to end? with an ass whupping 9 out of 10 times...which is why 1) we'd know if it happened, most likely and 2) it didn't happen.
I think the question is fascinating, divorced from the politics. How does something become "true" in the popular mind? Consider the 10% of the population is gay myth. The gay rights movement will scream that as loud as they can, but it is a load of crap. No legitimate study of the question has ever approached numbers above 5%. The most reliable ones average out at around 4% for men and less for women. But if you did a survey of Americans, I bet the majority would say 10%. In part, this is the fault of the media, who lazily repeat bad statistics.
Repetition and mass belief does not equal "truth"...
The author is guilty of a logical fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The book, as you describe it, also begs the questions: How hard did the author look? and What standards of evidence were accepted? Does the book actually exist, or is it a convenient stalking horse created by jd?
And, given that the author was trying to sell books to a select market, my opinion as to the answers to those questions would be: not very, nothing that would contradict his preconceived hypothesis, and I don't have enough info about jd to decide.
It seems that you may not be recalling the title of the book correctly unless it is, indeed, the autobiography of a former Black Panther.
On the basis of an unscientific commercial work of dubious merit that may or may not exist, you have chosen to draw conclusions that support your worldview.
At this time, you have zero credibility with me. I'll need to see some documentation to change my opinion.
You ask the right questions, and your epistemological statement is 100% correct. But to answer those questions, you would have to read the book and assess the method of analysis. The absence of evidence of any spitting incidents does not definitely prove that none occurred, as I have previously stated. However, it does make it highly unlikely that these were events that were widely occurring, since other events that WERE have been very well documented.
The book exists. If you go to Amazon.com you'd find it.
The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (Paperback)
by Jerry Lembcke
Hmm...an anti-war activist goes looking for evidence that his ideological comrades committed vile acts and finds none?
Dog bites man.
I thought you were talking about some peer-reviewed, scholarly tome.
Lembcke didn't interview me, nor did he talk to Cookie. Take my word for it.
You might have mentioned that Lembcke believes that PTSD was a creation of Nixon and saved a lot of time. Then I would have known immediately that you were citing a conspiracy loon.
Me: "Hey, jd, did you make any comments relating the Westboro freakazoids to the Republicans?"
jd: "Nope, I never made any such connections"
About the same methodology as jd's source.
Have either of you even read a page of the book?
And Bill--suppose you were going to try and find out if spitting ever happened? How would you do it? Wouldn't you talk to people who claimed to know people who were spit on? And then talked to those people? And then tried to track down the truth? And everyone's story that he talked to, it didn't check out. He then started to look at police records. Pro-war newspapers and pro-war organizations. Look, do you think conservatives were fucking idiots in 1970? Don't you think they knew that if they had a vet returning from home, who was spit on, that it would rally support for the troops? They'd certainly publicize it. Remember the swift boat guy who attacked Kerry? He was part of a network of vets attacking Kerry back in 71. Don't you think his org would have had contemporaneous accounts of spitting on vets?
Please, consider what YOUR methodology would be. I think Lembecke's is pretty good. And again, if you have an eyewitness account, please contact him.
BTW, let's think for a moment. In my experience, military veterans stand up for their rights. They tend to be difficult to cow. I just saw a Democratic veteran candidate for Congress challenge a blow dry Dem consultant in front of a 100 people for not telling us to call Bush a liar on Iraq. It was not a polite exchange, and the vet was bunching his fists in rage.
By contrast, our stereotypical hippy (leaving the hell's angels out of this, and they weren't really hippies) is not so adept with his fists.
So, let's imagine--one on one, a vet doesn't let himself get spit on. Most Marines I know wouldn't get spit on when it was 5-1 without putting a big hurt on somebody. And that's assuming that everyone else in the place was okay with a veteran getting spit on. I don't even think that would happen at fucking woodstock.
Face it--urban myth. I can't prove that it never happened, somewhere, sometime. But I think it is HIGHLY illustrative that the two accounts (cookie's and dpb's) have been incredibly (and unnecessarily) vague. Moreover, when challenged for a reason for his vagueness, DPB gave one excuse, and then shifted to another. Both were ludicrous.
Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is that Lembcke lied. There's little doubt of that in my mind.
And jd, you've had the same questions answered over and over again, yet you continue to mischaracterize the responses you've received.
You also make a habit of posting off-topic, seeking to disrupt the conversations of others.
Have you decide to become a troll?
It's called learned prudence. You might catch on in a few years if you are spared. But I doubt it.
I attacked the author for saying that PTSD was created by Nixon. PTSD, as is any psychological disorder, is such an ambiguous diagnosis because psychology as a "science" is still comprised of 90% speculation and bullshit. But PTSD, identified as shellshock and battle fatigue has been around much longer than Nixon.
Americans who have received death threat are in greater danger than other Americans. Americans whose writing is discussed on Jihadi websites are also in greater danger. Your idea that everything any Muslim extremist might do is conceived and approved at an AQ Central Command is incredibly misinformed.
This is the last word on student/vet conflict following Vietnam:
Get the image of mass protests with platoons of spitting activists out of your head. In the mid-seventies, after the pullout, the cultural war was played out in small-scale incidents - mostly barfights - between vocal students and townie vets and their buddies. The drinking age was eighteen, and bars had more student trade. I recall at least five or six barfights I participated in then, most of them just normal tension between students and townies, but two the result of taunts designed to provoke fights and directed at returned local vets. And yes, in one of those, the escalation included a "hippie" actually spitting a beer on one of my friends.
It's possible that the taunts were less ideological than just a tactic to provoke a fight. Some people enjoyed that sort of thing, and with the drinking age at eighteen, there were more drinkers and more testosterone in the air.
Don't delude yourself. I said it was "possible", not that I believed it was the case. Even if the main motivation were to start a fight, non-racists do not suddenly use the word "nigger" as a provocation, nor do leftists use insults alien to their ideology.
It obviously comforts you to think that the Left didn't really hold animosity toward veterans of Vietnam. It did. There were half-hearted attempts to embrace soldiers as "victims" - so long as they would spout anti-war propaganda, a type of Stockholm Syndrome, but the bottom line then, as today, is that the Left does not tolerate deviation from the party line.
Most of the time you didn't know who the vets were, because they had learned that knowledge of their service exposed them to grotesque, almost casual forms of social abuse from other people their age, who had gotten student deferments.
It was this miasma of willful self-delusion, gullibility, and end-justifies-the-means deliberate dishonesty and betrayal that helped shape my early political beliefs.
I knew that vets weren't "war criminals" or "baby-burners". My own father was a decorated veteran; I knew something of what he had suffered and I knew that the ignorant, callous jibes at parties and in bars were baseless.
The ultimate proof of how badly the Left had been used came during Tet, when Ho deliberately allowed the Viet Cong to be decimated, and after the Communist victory, when so many loyal servants of the Revolution became Boat People or entered the re-education camps.
You've just been shown, and accepted, that it wasn't a falsehood. Are you retarded?
the first picture is not of Fred. It's Bill Hockenberger, an inlaw.
Commenting by HaloScan
