Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Real Truth Online’s 2009 Fraud of the Year: Andy Ostroy

The first of many Fraudies for the Obama-worshipping, liberal hack?
by Larry Simons
December 23, 2009

Let me clear something up to some of you who may be wondering how I deem someone a fraud. A fraud, to me, is not just an imposter or someone who sets out to deceive. A fraud is also someone who intentionally omits glaring incriminating facts in order to advance one’s agenda. A fraud is a blatant hypocrite. A fraud is someone who enables comment moderation on their blog in order to prevent incriminating comments from being seen by other posters, in which the moderator would be forced to address, or otherwise appear for certain to be the big fraud that they are already being. Under just these three definitions, the title of fraud fits liberal blogger Andy Ostroy like a glove.

For his consistent hypocrisy and fraudiness throughout this entire year [that I have proven time and time again], it is only befitting that I bestow the honor of 2009’s RTO Fraud of the Year honors to Andy Ostroy.

The ironic thing about Ostroy being the new Fraudie winner is the fact that his articles used to be a cherished treasure here at Real Truth Online, until the night he shed his integrity and his soul. That night was November 4, 2008, when Barack Obama was elected the 44th President.

His articles used to be posted here when he wrote about the tragedy that was the Bush administration. Because I agreed with him, per se? No. Because they were truthful and impossible to refute. Since January 2009 [when I posted my very first anti-Ostroy article], Ostroy has been repeatedly caught red-handed in committing an act so many of his fellow liberals are guilty of as well: Holding one man and his party in higher esteem than this country and its founding documents.

This is the very thing that supporters of Bush were accused of: Holding Bush and their party [Republican] in higher regards than the Constitution. Along came people like Ostroy, doing the exact same thing, only standing on the opposite side of the political fence.

I wrote my first article in January rebuking Ostroy for writing an article titled, “I Want to be Black”. It was a near 500-word article that, if I summed up its message in one sentence, would be titled, “Who cares if Obama is qualified to be President, or if he even has character? He’s black, and that’s all that matters.”

Ostroy also mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr. in the same article, completely omitting that King once said, "Let us not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character", thus contradicting himself by making the entire article the very type of stereotypical mindset that King condemned.

In March, I wrote a story exposing Ostroy for censoring my comments posted on his blog, only to later deny he was censoring them and continued to censor despite the denials. He responded to one of my comments by saying, “I have no problem posting your comments--whether I agree with them or not--so long as they are not filled with nastiness and ad hominen attacks.”

The funny thing was, he would delete my comment and then respond saying my comments were “nasty” and “filled with ad hominem attacks”, so that his faithful readers would only see HIS comment saying my comments were nasty. Then, he would delete my comment so that his readers wouldn’t see that my comments were not nasty. That is a true fraud.

Also in March, Ostroy continued to delete my comments after I continued to inform him about the fact that Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s father Benjamin Emanuel, was a terrorist in the late 1940’s as a member of the militant terrorist group Irgun. Despite the fact that Ostroy’s website boasts “we're not afraid to criticize our own when warranted”, he not only continually ignored my comments about Ben Emanuel, but he said this to me:

“Larry, if you are going to insist on clogging the message board with rambling, antagonistic, inflammatory off-topic postings you are going to be banned/rejected every time you post.”

Ostroy’s tactic of saying my comments were “nasty” wasn’t enough for him. He then thought he could scare me away from posting comments by issuing a warning to me. Ostroy said:

“Larry, last warning: if you leave one more disruptive, harassing post on this board I am going to report you to blogger.com, and they will ban you from their site…and you will lose your own blog. Be smart.”

What Ostroy was really telling me was, “Please stop posting those incriminating facts about the people I support on my blog, because I have no defense and no way to refute you.” What Ostroy didn’t count on was the fact that I actually knew blogger.com’s policies better than he did. The only violations that get people removed from blogger.com are: Impersonation, pornography and obscenity, hateful content, copyright, private/personal info, unlawful use of services and spam/viruses. I was violating none of them.

On the other hand, many of Ostroy’s readers had violated blogger.com’s policies in the past by saying things like:

“I will not miss Sarah Palin's dumb husband and her stupid kids: Blog, Flap, Bristol-Myers, Dune, Rug, and Blitzen.”

and

“i prayed to god that you get ass cancer and your brains fall out--you are an evil shit.”

Ostroy allowed them.

In my April story, I exposed 'Ostroy the hypocrite' for pro-Iraq war comments, despite continually opposing the war under Bush. Ostroy said:

“Five American soldiers were killed in Iraq Friday in a suicide-bomb attack in the northern city of Mosul, the deadliest attack against U.S. troops in over a year. The increase in deadly violence threatens the June deadline for withdrawal of American combat troops from cities, part of a U.S-Iraqi agreement which took effect this year. The top U.S. commander, Gen. Raymond Odierno, warned this week that we could instead see an increase in U.S. troops in Mosul and Baqubah, and expressed concerns about the escalation in Sunni-militant-led violence among Arabs and Kurds in the north. He also cited the "very dangerous" threat from Iranian-funded militants. Given that we can't fully pull out our troops for at least another 16 months and the odds are, as the good General says, we'll have to increase our troop strength shortly in some major northern cities, it's unbelievable how the Republicans and Bush apologists still get away with their claims of success for the surge and for the war itself. Any idiot can see how fragile Iraq's Democracy is, and that without our troops, the country will likely fall like a house of cards.”

Andy had previously [pre-November 4, 2008, when he was AGAINST the Iraq war] said:

“That our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are the sons and daughters of the poor and middle classes, not those of the wealthy, or those of the Republican war-mongers who sent them there. The true contempt for our soldiers comes from you and your neo-con pals who sent them off to fight and die in a totally bogus, elective war where America faced no threat whatsoever.” [June 23, 2008]

“Let's face it, Iraqi soldiers throwing in the towel is definitely not a good sign, no matter how you spin it. It shows the fear and frustration they have in waging this mess of a war that's now in its sixth year. It also shows a lack of desire and commitment. And it raises the possibility that these people just don't want what we want. Five years later, the government is not a functioning Democracy in any sense of the word. The Iraqi military is not able to stand up and defend the country. Simply put, on the political front, there is little or no progress. And militarily, as we are constantly reminded by the Busheviks and McCain, without our soldiers there the country would fall into 'anarchy and genocide' (which some rational folks think is exactly what's been there for years now).

Bush and Cheney have us on a death spiral that's not getting any better. Five years, 4000 dead soldiers and $500 billion spent and what do we have to show for it? Fleeing Iraqi soldiers. We are constantly told there's tremendous success being made, but we're still mired in sectarian violence and Iraqi troop failures. The Bushevik contradictions are astounding. They have no clear mission, and no clear end in sight. They say we can leave when we've achieved success and finished the mission, yet every time they point to this great progress and success they declare that troops can't come home and may in fact need to be there longer than expected. It's a smoke and mirrors show worthy of the best American carnival.

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopefuls, need to start ratcheting up their rhetoric about this disaster of a war. They need to pound the Busheviks hard for getting us into this mess. They need to shine a light on McCain's incessant war-mongering and supreme delusion that we're actually accomplishing something over there. The only thing we're accomplishing is a reprise of Vietnam, where we're gonna kill tens of thousands of our soldiers, and then, when we're finally fed up, we'll throw in the towel. And just like Vietnam, the Iraq war will go down in history as an utter failure; a vanity project of delusional U.S. presidents. The key question here is, how much are Obama and Clinton willing to do, and how quickly, to stanch the bloodshed and put an end to this debacle?

[April 16, 2008]

Not only did I expose Ostroy for the big flaming FRAUD he is on his complete 180 on the Iraq war, Ostroy said this to me on April 11, 2009 in response to the three paragraph excerpt of Ostroy’s OWN words [above, that I sent to him in one of my posts on his site, that he later deleted] from his April 16, 2008 article:

“Larry, the reason your posts are consistently deleted is because you never offer anything constructive. Your posts are nothing but anger-filled attacks designed to antagonize and be combative. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what you have to say. The problem is, you have nothing to say and you make no points. So as long as you choose to be a rabble-rouser rather than someone who offers either complimentary points or constructive opposing views, you will continue to be censored. Your idea and my idea of Free Speech is quite different.”

I make no points? Yes, his idea of free speech and mine are different. His idea of free speech: You can post any comment you want, even if it's something I don't agree with, as long as I can offer an explanation or argument. If you make an EXCELLENT point [even using my OWN words] and I cannot refute it, I will threaten you, call your comments "nasty", "combative" and "antagonistic" and delete you. My idea of free speech: Simply pointing out where someone has been hypocritical by comparing a person's past comments to their present ones. Ostroy was admitting his OWN words are his worst enemy; that’s why he deleted them.

In late April, I exposed Ostroy for resorting to his next tactic [after saying my comments were “angry” and threatening to report me to blogger.com didn’t work]: Posing as his own screener on his blog. Obviously, this was Ostroy’s attempt to convince me that it was a waste of my time to even comment on his blog [after I forced him to moderate comments again] by telling me he doesn’t even see the comments I write because they don’t make it past his “screener” [which I proved, was Ostroy himself].

Here is a run-down of the remaining reasons why Ostroy is top fraud of 2009 here at Real Truth Online. Read these articles sometime. They are shocking, revealing and quite funny [in the “I can’t believe this guy writes for The Huffington Post and has been on Hardball with Chris Matthews” sense].

For blaming the internet for “destroying the economy” when he wrote his story on a free website and doesn’t send a dime to Google CEO Eric E. Schmidt anyway

For saying that Obama is a “transcendent leader” even though Obama has continued or adopted over 15 Bush policies

For saying the Holocaust museum shooter was a right-wing nut just because he was a white supremacist even though he hated McCain, both Bush’s and FOX News

For vilifying and convicting Michael Jackson of his child molestation charges (despite being acquitted of them) a day after his death

For saying that when Obama said “…the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting someone when there was already proof that they were in their own home” [when referring to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in July] that he was using urban slang!

For doing a complete 180 in his terminology usage about Obama in two articles just 79 days apart

For saying that Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

For saying that America is in a better economic and sociological situation than we were a year ago

For continually defending Obama, calling him a vehicle for change and a "transcendent” leader, then calling him a failure and saying he has not changed anything

Unless Andy Ostroy makes a drastic move and shape-shifts back into the human being he was before November 4, 2008, this is going to be a looooooooooong remaining 3 years for Ostroy here at RTO. He now has one Fraudie on his mantle. Move your Obama bobbleheads out of the way and make room for more, buddy!

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

dude, you are fucking insane. If I was ostroy I'd be getting a restraining order.

Larry said...

Im in Maryland and he's in NYC-----I dont want to be anywhere NEAR this fraud.

Anonymous said...

i just scrolled down your blog a bit and seriously, the amount of time you spend on ostroy makes you look like a fucking psycho. your ranting like a nut and you come off like a twisted sicko. your obssesed dude, let it go.

Larry said...

But yet, you came to MY site. Should I be worried that youre stalking ME? lol

Anonymous said...

no. came to your site thinking there was something worthwhile here but quickly realized this aint no legitimate political blog but a forum for the insane rantings of an obsessed pycho. I went and checked out ostroy's blog, and while I dont agree with everything he says he at least comes off as intelligent and, objective, professional. I guess thats why he gets on Huffington Post, Fox and other stuff while you spend all your time here clearly showing your jealousy. Again, get a life man. And dont worry about me stalking you, friend, I wont be back.

Larry said...

Awwww, Ill be sorry to see you go...NOT. Anyone who reads Ostroys blog and says he is "intelligent and, objective, professional" is insane themselves---as I have illustrated in my articles. So, completely flip-flopping on the war is sane? lol, ok. Funny how you say I'm an "obsessed psycho" but you have failed miserably to give me ONE example of anything Ive written that would make me a "psycho".Care to name ONE? I guess thats why you like Ostroy so much. When he mkes claims, he offers ZERO proof. He just says it, and it's "fact". You make claims about me without providing one shred of proof.

So, bloggers that constantly talk about the President and criticize him are "stalkers"? This blog doesnt just talk about Ostroy. I write articles about alot of people. Ostroy has been the most consistent hypocrite over the past year---thats why he won this very prestigious award.

"this aint no legitimate political blog"???? "Aint no"????? Who are you, Fred G. Sanford [and the G stands for "goddamn you're dumb"]?

Larry said...

Wont be back huh? You were on again yesterday at 2:19pm, which was about an hour after you left the above post, ya fraud.

Larry said...

And you were back on again at 1:29pm today. You "wont be back?"----and yet you were back TWICE so far? We have the makings of a fraud here folks!

the_last_name_left said...

Ah - I see you've charmed another reader, Larry?

Larry - why does Ostroy have to put up with you? You might wish he would, but, why does he have to?

You support his property rights, don't you? It's his website, after all.

That fits your worldview - support for private property rights.

Yet now you feel "silenced" by Ostroy, you're complaining that Ostroy's exercise of his property rights is functioning as "censorship".

Can I ask you to remember that idea, whenever you're next tempted to extoll the virtues of private property?
---
Ostroy's characterisation of your complaints as "nasty" doesn't surprise me, to be honest, Larry. You don't help yourself by such behaviour. you simply don't have to be so horrible.

I don't know Ostroy, nor care about him.......but I imagine your characterisations of him are suspect.

What's your single strongest claim, for example? I suspect it isn't quite as damning as you imagine.

You said Ostroy thought the most important thing about Obama was that he was black?

L: ...an article titled, “I Want to be Black”. It was a near 500-word article that, if I summed up its message in one sentence, would be titled, “Who cares if Obama is qualified to be President, or if he even has character? He’s black, and that’s all that matters.”

I suspect there was perhaps a little more to ostroy's article......but.....who knows? And who cares?

;)

Larry said...

Ahhhhh I see The Last Dick Left is back and as usual, in same old "I dont investigate anything, nor do I care to" fashion.

If youre not going to READ my article or investigate/verify the claims Im making-----then why even care enough to leave a post for me about it? All you do is speculate and guess on matters where the evidence is at your fingertips, but you dont care enough to even click links with your mouse.

You said:

"What's your single strongest claim, for example? I suspect it isn't quite as damning as you imagine."

Dont "SUSPECT"-----READ my article and KNOW for sure. Did you even READ my article? Of course you didnt---you "dont care"----but yet you care enough to make speculations that I could be "mistaken" about Ostroy! Unreal.


All you do is look at my articles [without reading them] and base your entire response on 'what if's' and assumption, rather than actually checking out what Im saying.

You even ADMIT not investigaing anything by the statements:

"I don't know Ostroy, nor care about him.......but I imagine your characterisations of him are suspect."

Well, dont "IMAGINE"----INVESTIGATE it and look into it yourself. Ahhhh, you claim you "dont care"---so why leave a fucking post about it?

You said:

"I suspect there was perhaps a little more to ostroy's article......but.....who knows? And who cares?"

Well, dont "SUSPECT"-----INVESTIGATE IT and look into it yourself! Ahhh, but you "dont care", as you claim, but yet you post on my blog, telling me I "COULD" be wrong. Well, if you "dont care", then shut the fuck up and dont leave a post about it! Theres nothing I hate more than someone who question someone's facts/findings when they have not read ANY of what they are condemning and questioning.

Too fucking lazy to check out for SURE if I AM wrong? Of course you are, because if you looked into it, youd see that Im EXACTLY right. I provide links to HIS stories! Why would I provide links to HIS stories if the info incriminated ME?

Even in all your "imagining" and "suspecting" and not actually finding out the facts so youd KNOW for sure-----you didnt provide ONE refutation of my article. Like old times---reminds me of your cracker jack investigating skills of the 9-11 cover-up! LOL

And by the way, this article about Ostroy is NOT about his RIGHT to censor---its about the FACT that he's a giant hypocrite on what he writes about. He has even DELETED posts I posted on his blog where I left HIS OWN QUOTES from stories he had written months/weeks earlier! He deleted his OWN words! That ALONE proves he's a colossal fraud.

Why would he DELETE my posts even if I WAS being "nasty"? Wouldnt he want his other readers to see how "nasty" I was and join in on bashing me? I really hate when I have to re-write my articles to you in the comment section because youre too fucking LAZY to read my story.

If youre not going to read ALL of it, the dont post anything. Read the ENTIRE article, and if you see discrepencies in my writing, then LIST them and point them out. If you CANT do that, then the ONLY thing to make of that is that you CANT.

Larry said...

I just checked my sitemeter---you werent even ON my blog long enough to have read the article, let alone clicking links and looking at Ostroys stories and my past ones, unless youre a speed reader.

I love my site meter-----sometimes it really helps nailing FRAUDS like you. Like the other reader above---he claimed he "wouldnt be back", yet he's been to my site TWICE since that remark. He didnt post anything those two times, but he's visited.

the_last_name_left said...

unless youre a speed reader.

Well done - you're learning to question your own assumptions. Tentatively. But it's a start.

How did Larry the Agnostic celebrate the Christian festival?

the_last_name_left said...

I'll ask again - what is your strongest point about Ostroy? All you have to do is to give me your single strongest argument - and then I'll look at it.

Rivero of WRH deletes his own words when I quote them to him........

But you have a banner link to WRH.

Obviously it isn't that aspect that really irks you, else you'd be interested to hear why someone you promote (and presumably respect) deletes their own words when quoted back at them ie Mike Rivero.

Why would Ostroy delete your posts quoting him? Maybe because he was deleting everything you posted? Maybe he has changed, and you embarass him?

I honestly can't be bothered to go find out. How would I find that out anyway?

So why not just give me your single strongest argument, and I might have something specific to comment on. Otherwise, my general points stand.

Larry said...

"Well done - you're learning to question your own assumptions. Tentatively. But it's a start."

Except its NOT an assumption. The site meter on the upper right side of my site tells me the length of time people spend on my site. You werent on long enough to fart twice, let alone to read my story PLUS all the links to past stories! NOT an assumption! Dumbass!

"I'll ask again - what is your strongest point about Ostroy? All you have to do is to give me your single strongest argument - and then I'll look at it."

Hilarious! So, you want me to post excerpts of my story in here BEFORE you read the story itself where the excerpts ARE?? Youre insane! That sentence ALONE PROVES you didnt read my story ya jackoff. "THEN I'll look at it?" (for the FIRST time?---meaning, you havent looked at it ONCE yet!) Your OWN words incriminate you!

"Obviously it isn't that aspect that really irks you, else you'd be interested to hear why someone you promote (and presumably respect) deletes their own words when quoted back at them ie Mike Rivero."

I have NO proof Rivero does that. I dont read articles on your queer-ass site, except for the 9-11 stuff you post which is all garbage that Ive refuted hundreds of times---only to have you respond by enabling COMMENT MODERATION because YOU hate when YOUR OWN WORDS are posted too!

"Why would Ostroy delete your posts quoting him? Maybe because he was deleting everything you posted? Maybe he has changed, and you embarass him?"

Instead of ASKING why, you could READ why instead of speculate that I MIGHT be telling the truth. Of course he was deleting everything I posted, because his own words [then] were incriminating to what he currently says in RECENT stories.

"I honestly can't be bothered to go find out. How would I find that out anyway?"

If you cant be "bothered to go findout" then shut the fuck up! Your a lazy asshole that is physically unable to research facts. Its OK if you dont feel like researching it, but dont come here and ask ME to give you evidence in the comment section when the facts are in my stories that you cant be "BOTHERED TO GO FIND OUT"! I asked you to READ my story before replying again, but no, youre too fucking lazy to do that. You want me to REPEAT in here what I said in my story, because youre a lazy ass!

How would you find that out anyway? By reading my past stories about Ostroy you dumbass! But, you cant be "BOTHERED TO GO FIND OUT"! God, youre a moron!

"So why not just give me your single strongest argument, and I might have something specific to comment on. Otherwise, my general points stand."

READ MY STORY you lazy prick---AND the past stories where I PROVE what I say. You hvent read ONE word of my story, but you come in here and claim that I "might" be incorrect??? How would you know that when you ADMITTED you didnt read it?????? You are the biggest DICK on Earth!

Your general points stand? WHAT POINTS? That you claim I might be wrong and Im assuming but you ADMIT not reading the story and ADMIT that you "cant be BOTHERED to go find out?"-----THOSE points??? Do you realize ho much credibility you give to Mike Rivero by ADMITTING you draw conclusions to my stories based on NOT READING THEM? Do you NOT READ Rivero's stories too and then draw conclusions about them that are false, like you do HERE?

I cant believe you ask me to make my points HERE [in the comment section] when I wrote a fucking STORY detailing my points SPECIFICALLY! Its YOUR JOB to attempt to REFUTE what I said in my story---its not MY job to repeat myself in the comment section, you fucking retard!

The fact that you REFUSE to copy and paste anything SPECIFIC from this story and attempt to refute it and continue to make general comments about it speaks volumes as to why your credibility is SHIT.

Larry said...

"How did Larry the Agnostic celebrate the Christian festival?"

What does that have to do with the Ostroy story??? More of your classic divert, deflect and ignore techniques. Maybe you should have posted that under something that had to do with religion---but you dont care,right? You cant be "bothered to go find" a religious post, correct?

MORON

Larry said...

Heres a fact that I COULD be "bothered to find out": Since February 2008 to NOW, you have a grand total of 460 hits on your site. I did the math. Thats 5.2 hits a WEEK on your site. 5.2 a WEEK!!!!!

I have 10 hits JUST TODAY [Dec 29th] so far! I have more hits on my site in just 6 hours than you average in an entire WEEK. Your site doesnt even average ONE HIT A DAY!!!!! In FACT, it averages 0.7 hits a day. 0.7 A DAY!!!!!!!!! Without YOU and Socrates visiting your site----that 0.7 probably drops to 0.1---LOL

My point??? NOBODY--------and I mean literally NOBODY reads your SHIT-OLA!

Larry said...

Youd be better off just telling ONE person at work what you think, rather than having your site. If you told ONE person you work with your world views, that would be MORE people that visits your site every day. ONE is more than 0.7! Your site is LIERALLY useless.

the_last_name_left said...

LOL

I asked what is your STRONGEST argument........not to reiterate the myriad vague ones you make in your article.

How is one to know what you believe is your single strongest argument about Ostroy? I can't work it out from reading your article. Nobody could?

You realise that bringing up the fact that your interminable rantings, foul language, personal insults and nastiness FORCED me into moderating your comments, undermines your complaint about Ostroy?

Where have you posted where your charm hasn't elicited requests to cease the swearing, insults and paranoid ranting - as a prelude to banning you for refusal to comply with common decency? I can't imagine.

Then we have your former friend, the preacher guy, whom ended up similarly banning you, fearful of your paranoid aggressive stalking act.

This all adds up to supporting evidence for the dude whom posted earlier. Not for you and your argument against Ostroy.

Which, let it be clear, I have ASKED YOU ABOUT. What IS your single best argument about Ostroy? You won't give one........then presumably I can pick any claim you make? Fine - you lost the opportunity. I'll take a look, and I'll choose the claim. (I already did that once - you missed my comments about your claims that Ostroy reduced Obama to being solely about being "black"?)

L: You want me to REPEAT in here what I said in my story, because youre a lazy ass!

No, silly. I was asking you to EXPOUND on your article.

the_last_name_left said...

460 is profile views. silly boy.

still - a good example of your "journalism".

:D

ME: "How did Larry the Agnostic celebrate the Christian festival?"

Larry: What does that have to do with the Ostroy story??? More of your classic divert, deflect and ignore techniques.


LOL. It's called Christmas, Larry, not "classic divert, deflect, ignore" techniques.

Merry "classic divert, deflect, ignore techniques", Larry.

We still say "Seasons Greetings!".........kinda old fashioned I know......

Larry said...

"LOL. It's called Christmas, Larry, not "classic divert, deflect, ignore" techniques."

Yeah, and that comment was left under a story about OSTROY, not Christmas!----which VALIDATES my question "What does that have to do with the Ostroy story???"

Da-duhhhhhhhhh

"460 is profile views. silly boy."

Mind telling me the difference between a profile view and a "hit"??????? A PAGE View is different from a hit, but a PROFILE view IS a hit! God, are you 6 years old???

"No, silly. I was asking you to EXPOUND on your article."

What SPECIFIC point asshole??? Its YOUR job to pick somthing out that you could attempt to refute, and its my job to defend it. Copy and paste the VERY part that you find fault with---is THAT so hard? Of course it hard for you! You ADMITTED you didnt LOOK at the article!

"You realise that bringing up the fact that your interminable rantings, foul language, personal insults and nastiness FORCED me into moderating your comments, undermines your complaint about Ostroy?"

You mean like when you called ME nasty names like "CUNT" when I was crushing you on the 9-11 stuff??

LOL, "FORCED" you to---thats funny as hell. If I was this raving lunatic like you claim, why didnt you ALLOW me to post more and allow your ONE visitor a day [actualy 0.7] SEE how "crazy" I was? Know why? Because YOU was NOT allowing me to post YOUR OWN WORDS---just like Ostroy did to me! Thats why you defend him! You and him are one in the same!

the_last_name_left said...

Lordy!

First off - you're the only person that has forced me to enable moderation. Because you were being "a cunt". How long did the moderation last? Days. Even when you were in moderation, what did I not post? Nothing - I posted all your drivel. Don't kid yourself that you possess any information or "ideas" that worry me. Completely disagreeing with me does not mean I a feel the least need to censor the content of your arguments. The swearing, insults and vitriol are, however, a different matter.

I don't like nutters being cunts....for weeks and weeks.........so.....having repeatedly asked you to change your tone.....in vain......I was forced to enable moderation.

There was a subsequent slight improvement in your tone. :)

On the other hand, you deleted some of my first posts here - and they were, as ever, civil, polite, and reasonably respectful.

the_last_name_left said...

God, are you 6 years old???

No, and I'm not god, actually. ;) I'll take that as a freudian slip.....you know you love me too?

Sometimes I feel like 6 yrs old, when responding to you, for example.

Mind telling me the difference between a profile view and a "hit"??????? A PAGE View is different from a hit, but a PROFILE view IS a hit!

460 is profile views. You assume that counts as "readers".

I don't much care.......but it does show your compulsion for assumption.

L: What SPECIFIC point asshole???

Whatever was your strongest point......

I thought that was clear enough.

I was inviting you to further traduce Ostroy........on ground you picked yourself.

Can't get more generous than that?

L: You ADMITTED you didnt LOOK at the article!

I don't think so. What did I do - just open a random webpage and click COMMENT without looking?

Yes, I "read" the article - no, I am not very familiar with Ostroy, nor do I much care. I just know you're prone to assumptions and broad generalisations, all of which just happen to fit neatly into your world view.

I read enough to raise the issue of your claims about Ostroy - that he authored some article wherein Obama was solely about "being black".

At Ostroy's blog, you said

L: you make it appear as if the ONLY reason he got where he is is because of his race!

I don't get that impression at all.

L: Nowhere in this article did you mention his qualifications, his policies or any talents he might possess, but ONLY his race. Your article is just as ridiculous as if you would have said, "He's president because he's black"

I don't take the article as saying that.

Ostroy's article actually says "Today we are all black."

I find Ostroy saying that presumptuous. It seems a silly thing to say.

But the point is - Ostroy does *NOT* suggest what you claimed - that Obama won ONLY because he was "black".

You summed up Ostroy's article as "“Who cares if Obama is qualified to be President, or if he even has character? He’s black, and that’s all that matters.”"

Ostroy in no way suggests "all that matters" is that "Obama is black". Ostroy seems merely delighted that "A" black dude can become president. A simple and obvious pleasure, I'd have thought, but one which you somehow turn into "fraud".

Why did you think the article was saying "all that matters is Obama is black"?

the_last_name_left said...

question, Larry.......

What exactly is so wrong about having "the son of a terrorist" as CoS?

And errr.....wasn't the American Revolution considered "terrorism"? And isn't this terrorism of the past revered today as "fighting for land and liberty" etc? By yourself, no less?

What's the difference between violence used to establish israel, say, and violence used to establish america.....?

Care to offer some thoughts?

Larry said...

My goodness, you are the biggest fraud of them all. But, you're too pussy to state your real name, plus, no one cares about your site or your world view [which is distorted as hell], so you wont be winning any Fraudies.

First of all, I never SAID a "hit" was a reader---DID I?? A hit is simply coming to your site, even if its by accident. Where did I SAY a "hit" was a "reader"??? Care to answer that? Of course you wont!

“First off - you're the only person that has forced me to enable moderation. Because you were being "a cunt".

So, you ADMIT calling me a “cunt”! So, YOU can call ME names, but I cant call YOU names! Funny, when I used profanity toward YOU, you enable moderation because youre a big fucking baby. Did you CRY right before you were “forced” [still funny] to enable moderation??? Im sure you did. All pussies cry over being called names.

“I posted all your drivel. Don't kid yourself that you possess any information or "ideas" that worry me. Completely disagreeing with me does not mean I a feel the least need to censor the content of your arguments. The swearing, insults and vitriol are, however, a different matter.”

LOL, soooo funny. My “drivel?”…lol, you mean me constantly humiliating you with FACTS, dates, links, sources and refutations to your lies and hypocrisy? Like when I REPEATEDLY asked you about the McCormick Center and you REPEATEDLY ignored it? Like when you repeatedly ignored question after question I would ask, and then they would build up, and when they built up, you would refuse to answer them because I asked “so many” of them, when YOU let them build up by IGNORING them??

“Completely disagreeing with me does not mean I a feel the least need to censor the content of your arguments.” But you DID! LOL

“The swearing, insults and vitriol are, however, a different matter.”

Ahhh, but you can call me “cunt” and its perfectly OK, huh? No, the TRUTH is, you USED my name calling and “vitriol” as an EXCUSE to enable moderation because I was kicking your queenie ASS with facts!

L: What SPECIFIC point asshole???

“Whatever was your strongest point......

I thought that was clear enough.”

Asking you SEVERAL times now to COPY and PASTE a SPECIFIC point I made is pretty fucking clear too, but you REFUSE to do it! Youre the KING of copy and paste, right? It should be easy for you. But, you don’t, because that would require READING my story, which you have NOT.

L: You ADMITTED you didnt LOOK at the article!

“I don't think so. What did I do - just open a random webpage and click COMMENT without looking?”

Im sure you read the title and the first paragraph, then stopped---never reading the remaining 95% of the story OR the past stories and links I provided [as evidence]. If you read ANY of the remaining 95%, then SURELY you could POST a specific point I made that you disagree with! The utter disbelief that you require ME to post the points that YOU disagree with is beyond mind-staggering!

And yes, you DID admit to NOT reading it all when you said, “I honestly can't be bothered to go find out. How would I find that out anyway?”

Its called READING, asshole!

Larry said...

“Yes, I "read" the article - no, I am not very familiar with Ostroy, nor do I much care. I just know you're prone to assumptions and broad generalisations, all of which just happen to fit neatly into your world view.”

You KNOW huh? Yet, you refuse to name ONE. Hmmm. Oh, that’s right! I have to list the things that YOU disagree with!!!!! LOL

“Ostroy in no way suggests "all that matters" is that "Obama is black".

Ok, dumbass, then go to his article and find ONE….ONE sentence where he talks about anything BUT race! Find ONE sentence that talks about his QUALIFICATIONS or POLICIES. You will fail, because theres NOT one. Ostroy is “delighted” because he’s black???? WHY? Will his SKIN COLOR fix this country???? It hasn’t YET! Even his POLICIES havent fixed anything! He continues WAR and rewards BANKERS!

“Why did you think the article was saying "all that matters is Obama is black"?”

Because the article ONLY talked about RACE…that’s IT. If you disagree, then YOU find ONE sentence where anything BUT race is mentioned. I already wrote MY story on it---now YOU post your evidence! But you wont, because youre a lazy ass FRAUD.

“What exactly is so wrong about having "the son of a terrorist" as CoS?”

Ostroy blasted McCain supporters for condemning Obama because he was associated with Bill Ayres, but he ignores Ben Emanuel. Ill answer your question by asking one back. What if Bin Laden had a son old enough to serve as CoS----and Obama appointed Him—could you imagine the outcry and fury that would be directed at Obama [and rightfully so]? So, tell me, whats the difference if the terrorist father is older and committed his terror 60 years ago, as opposed to 5-10 years? Now, are you STILL going to repeat that insane question?

“And errr.....wasn't the American Revolution considered "terrorism"? And isn't this terrorism of the past revered today as "fighting for land and liberty" etc? By yourself, no less?”

Ahhh, youre one of those “Revolution militia-men were terrorists” nuts! Oh god. If I have to explain the difference, then youre even a bigger dunce than I think you already are! Are you just pissed off that we kicked your asses and gained our indepedence from tyrant King George? Terrorism is about one thing----FEAR. Its not about blowing up buildings or even killing people-------that’s just the medium they use. Its ultimately about fear. The militias in the 1770’s were not about instilling FEAR, they were about refusing to bow to a tyrant-------------COLOSSAL difference, and if you don’t see that, youre the biggest dick that ever lived.

“What's the difference between violence used to establish israel, say, and violence used to establish america.....?”

I cant believe how dumb you are. Oh, wait, yes I can. TERRORISM was used to establish Israel [in fact, BEN EMANUEL was one of the terrorists that helped with that----ironic you mentioned that!]. I believe I just explained the difference in how America was established. The fact that I even HAD to explain it indicates your intelligence level is about 5 levels below a fucking rock.

Anonymous said...

wow. the last fraud name and his moron friends keep looking like a bigger joke. a stalkers delight here. full of queenies. remember reading is fundamental. build a bridge and get over yourselves. how pathetic last fruad name left. you queenie. you blow andy olstroy, dont you?

the_last_name_left said...

Me: “Ostroy in no way suggests "all that matters" is that "Obama is black".

L: Ok, dumbass, then go to his article and find ONE….ONE sentence where he talks about anything BUT race! Find ONE sentence that talks about his QUALIFICATIONS or POLICIES. You will fail, because theres NOT one.


There is no mention of Obama's policies - nor of his academic "qualifications".

True enough - but so what?

Your error is to proceed from the simple fact that Ostroy's article is ostensibly about race and not specific policy - and wrongly declare that the article was actually saying "He’s black, and that’s all that matters."

The article does not say that. FACT.

I don't see why you would think Ostroy's article was saying that. It doesn't say what you claim it does.

ME: “Why did you think the article was saying "all that matters is Obama is black"?”

L: Because the article ONLY talked about RACE…that’s IT.


But why do you take that as Ostroy saying "all that matters is Obama is black"?

I don't see the connection. Ostroy simply *does not* say what you claim he does. He doesn't even suggest it.

Your interpretation of what ostroy said seems to say more about you than about Ostroy. There's no reason at all why an article that ONLY mentions Obama's race should be construed as implying Obama's race is "all that matters". This is the mistake you are making.......it's not that difficult to grasp?

L: Ostroy is “delighted” because he’s black???? WHY? Will his SKIN COLOR fix this country????

Woah! Way to twist Ostroy's words?

Ostroy was surely celebrating the simple fact that a black guy could become president. That in itself is a form of "fixing this country". Right?

But it doesn't mean Ostroy was saying "all that matters" is that "Obama is black". You are adding two and two, and getting 9.3

You rage at Ostroy's awareness (and apparent gladness) of Obama's "blackness".........yet you seem to deny the reasons WHY Ostroy (and many others) could be pleased about the simple fact of a black dude being president.

Don't you understand the reasons for celebration? Not at all?

How can celebrating a non-white president mean "race is all that matters". Please explain how you come to such a conclusion.

the_last_name_left said...

And whilst ostroy's awareness and embrace of Obama's being black strikes you as Ostroy's exploiting of race, you don't have a problem with Alex Jones and your other crones mixing with hardcore racists..........bit odd, no?

You traduce Ostroy for some inverse racism by putting your own imagined meanings into his words, even as you continue your own support for racists.

Mightn't your ire be better focused on genuine racists, for example? Like the people you link to, quote, read and popularise? Rather than upon liberal Ostroy for simply celebrating the first non-white president?

Is that where you are coming from?

I mean - where is Larry's recognition of the meaning of a non-white president?

Where are Larry's articles on the evils of racism?

Where is Larry's celebration that the supposed highest office in the land can be held by a non-white american? For the first time! After 400 years.......400 years.........

Larry's articles on this stuff are *nowhere*. They don't exist, do they, Larry? Or do they? I missed them?

Instead of celebration of the fact - policies aside - we have Larry attacking someone for celebrating the fact a non-white/black dude *can* REALLY become president.

Ostroy didn't have to mention Obama's policies to celebrate a non-white/black president. Indeed - that would detract from the point by making it partisan. He was celebrating the fact *A* black person could become president......he was not saying the president was elected simply because he IS black/non-white nor that "all that matters is Obama is black."

A huge difference, but one you're unable to comprehend. Apparently.

Larry said...

Isnt it amazing that you quote SO much from Ostroys articles but dont quote ONE WORD from mine and yet you claim mine has errors! Simply amazing!

I see that all you talked about was Ostroy's 'Obama is black' story and didnt reply to ANY of the other things I addressed in my post. Thats your specialty--ignoring 90% of what I say----quite funny.

If Ostroy saw something ELSE in Obama worthy of mentioning OTHER than his race, I guess it was just coincidence to you that he DIDNT mention it, huh? Youre a sap. I could say the SAME thing about YOU with your Mike Rivero stories.

I could easily say "You misunderstood him, thats not what Rivero is saying at all, you jump to conclusions about him---one doesnt mean the other, etc etc and so on" Oh and by the way, Obama isnt even fully black. He's half WHITE.

Why is it that when someone is mostly white from an interracial couple, we never say they are white. We always say "they're mixed"---but when someone [like Obama] is mostly black from an interracial couple, we automatically call him 100% black, when he's not? Can you explain that???

So far, you have not refuted ONE thing Ive said. If you can...copy and paste my quote and fire away and refute me...Im waiting.

Couldnt you address the remaining 90% of my last 2 posts? All you had in your arsenal was the Obama/black shit???? I schooled you on the rest---{even the Obama/black thing too].

Larry said...

"Where is Larry's celebration that the supposed highest office in the land can be held by a non-white american? For the first time! After 400 years.......400 years........."

"Instead of celebration of the fact - policies aside - we have Larry attacking someone for celebrating the fact a non-white/black dude *can* REALLY become president.

Ostroy didn't have to mention Obama's policies to celebrate a non-white/black president. Indeed - that would detract from the point by making it partisan. He was celebrating the fact *A* black person could become president......he was not saying the president was elected simply because he IS black/non-white nor that "all that matters is Obama is black."

He is NOT non-white---he's HALF white. His mother was WHITE, you IDIOT. Obama is also 8th cousins to Dick Cheney.

"For the first time! After 400 years.......400 years........."

My god, this dick doesnt even know how old our country is!!! Its not 400 years old MORON, its 233 years old! Since Washington became President in 1789----that takes 13 years off of the amount of years it took a black man to become Prez, from 233 to 220. GEEEEESH! I had to TELL HIM THIS????????????????

Why didnt you address anything else I said BUT the Obama/black shit?????

the_last_name_left said...

L: Ostroy blasted McCain supporters for condemning Obama because he was associated with Bill Ayres, but he ignores Ben Emanuel.

So Ostroy criticised McCain supporters for kicking a stink about Obama's association with Bill Ayres?

And now you want Ostroy to criticise Obama for his association with Bill Ayres.....errrr.....Rahm Emanuel.

Seems to me Ostroy is being consistent. Or did you not notice?

He didn't agree with attacking Obama over Ayres........and he seemingly doesn't agree with attacking Obama over Emanuel.

That's consistent, isn't it?

And let's be fair - Emanuel is THE SON of his father.

L: Are you just pissed off that we kicked your asses and gained our indepedence from tyrant King George?

Oh yeah - I'm real bitter about it.

L: The militias in the 1770’s were not about instilling FEAR, they were about refusing to bow to a tyrant

And might not Rahm Emanuel's father have been motivated by some such lofty ideal too?

Somehow I suspect that doesn't count.

So, seemingly you justify violence if it's against whatever you deem to be "tyranny"?

that raises the question of what "tyranny" is, and whether violence is justified for any other reasons.

Is it only justified against "tyranny"? Nothing else?

What constitutes this "tyranny" exactly?

I find it interesting that presumably you put the colonisation of america down to British "tyranny".....colonisation was "terrorism", right? And that was succeeded by "America!".....throwing off the same tyranny....increasing freedom, liberty, etc? That wasn't "terrorism".......right?

I wonder if you'd today support a violent socialist uprising against western imperialism? Would you support such violence?

TERRORISM was used to establish Israel

Ah. And there was me thinking it was the UN.

Americans, huh? Mad as a box of frogs.

the_last_name_left said...

If Ostroy saw something ELSE in Obama worthy of mentioning OTHER than his race, I guess it was just coincidence to you that he DIDNT mention it, huh?

By your own admission, Ostroy spends time supportinmg Obama. Go look in his other articles for Ostroy's views on Obama's policies and credentials for presidency.

L: So far, you have not refuted ONE thing Ive said

Yes I have.

You said Ostroy's article could be summed up as "all that matters is Obama is black."

Ostroy does *not* say that.

Ostroy does not even suggest it.

You (perhaps honestly) think Ostroy was saying that "all that matters is Obama is black."

But he didn't say it - and he didn't suggest it.

Your claim that ostroy's article can be summed up as "all that matters is Obama is black." is plain WRONG. Your summation wouldn't pass an elementary comprehension test. So yes, that's refuting "one thing you said".

the_last_name_left said...

Then there's this: "For saying the Holocaust museum shooter was a right-wing nut just because he was a white supremacist"

oh........lol

Von Brunn certainly was a rightwing nut.

You seek to deny white supremacism is (extreme) "right wing"?

Larry said...

"And might not Rahm Emanuel's father have been motivated by some such lofty ideal too?"

Yeah, slaughtering hundreds of Palestinians because they wanted to enter Israel is such a lofty ideal! LOL

"I wonder if you'd today support a violent socialist uprising against western imperialism? Would you support such violence?"

A socialist uprising? NO. Would I support a 2nd civil war and secession from the union? YES. Why, you ask? The SAME reason the South did in 1861, the Constitution is being violated and the Declaration of Independence grants American citizens to do so. [and its NOT terrorism, assface!]

"Von Brunn certainly was a rightwing nut.

You seek to deny white supremacism is (extreme) "right wing"?"

Is that why he hated McCain, BOTH Bush's and FOX News????? All things considered RIGHT wing.

I dont label things right wing/left wing. I use those terms ONLY to differentiate how society sees the two, not because they really exist. How many fucking times do I have to say this??? There IS no right/left wing-----only the APPEARANCE of it so the politicians and talking heads can establish class warfare. To me, there is ONLY right and wrong.

Case in point: Why do morons like you [who call themselves LEFT wing] call 9/11 truthers RIGHT wing, and people who say theyre RIGHT wing call us FAR lefties????

Id like an answer to that.

I see you couldnt refute that Obama is HALF white----no sense in trying. Its known FACT that his mother was white! That alone excludes him from being a NON white-----which means YOU were LYING when you called him a non white.

Larry said...

Youve called me RIGHT wing time and time again, DESPITE the fact that on my site Ive nailed BOTH Bush's, McCain, Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, pretty much everyone at FOX News and anyone religious. I believe 9-11 was an inside job [which many call a LEFT wing view], I dont have anything against gays marrying and I like Michael Moore [a little] and Bill Maher. How in gods name can you call me RIGHT wing???

the_last_name_left said...

L: I see you couldnt refute that Obama is HALF white----no sense in trying. Its known FACT that his mother was white! That alone excludes him from being a NON white-----which means YOU were LYING when you called him a non white.

I was lying? lol

O is biracial.....black father, white mother. Like Bob Marley, white father, black mother.

That makes O and Bob "white"?

I don't really care, personally. However, I think it's pretty stupid to pretend, for example, that Bob Marley didn't suffer from racial prejudice..........or that anyone with mixed parentage mightn't suffer racial prejudice and racism.

The "race" point about Obama is he is the first mixed "race" president ie the first non-white.

That's what Ostroy's article was celebrating? His line that "we're all black now" celebrates a sense that racial prejudice no longer exists as it once did. I think it's a bit of a crass thing to say, but I think he was deliberately being provocative - "we're all black now" is guaranteed to antagonise racists, right?

It antagonised you.....

Anyway - it is surely very clear that Ostroy's article can only *very unfairly* be summarised as saying "all that matters is Obama is black".

It's plain wrong to summarise the article so. The article is ALL about celebrating the election of the first "black"/non-white/biracial/whatever president. It was an historic moment - especially as it's the land of slavery and the Klan et al.

That does not mean the article was saying "all that matters is Obama is black".

The article simply does *not* say it - and it does *not* even suggest it.

Except to you. Fair enough, but your view is objectively *wrong*. You can admit you overreached with your gripe? Or you can continue labouring under your misunderstanding.

Larry said...

"The "race" point about Obama is he is the first mixed "race" president ie the first non-white."

But he's NOT a non-white----he's HALF white! YOU called him BLACK in earlier posts!

"That makes O and Bob "white"?"

I NEVER said Obama was white, I said he is HALF white. YOU, on the other hand called Obama 100% BLACK, which was a LIE.

You completely ignored the Von Brunn stuff I mentioned, you getting the age of my country WRONG and my last comment about Ben Emanuel. Would it be OK if Obama appointed the SON of Bin Laden to CoS???

once AGAIN, you conveniently IGNORE questions I ask [common practice of yours], so I will REPEAT what you obviously refused to answer:

Case in point: Why do morons like you [who call themselves LEFT wing] call 9/11 truthers RIGHT wing, and people who say theyre RIGHT wing call us FAR lefties????

Id like an answer to that.

Why is it that I address 100% of things you say and you address 10% [if that] of things I say????

Hmmmm??????

the_last_name_left said...

ME: "And might not Rahm Emanuel's father have been motivated by some such lofty ideal too?"

Larry: Yeah, slaughtering hundreds of Palestinians because they wanted to enter Israel is such a lofty ideal! LOL


I kinda expected you to say that.

See.......you get to decide what the "lofty enough" motives are for violence. Perhaps you are right, but nevertheless, I think you should recognise that different people and cultures have different notions of which "lofty enough" ideals justify violence. Every violent people and culture can find a lofty ideal to justify it. Who is to decide on what is legitimate violence? You, and your bit of paper called the constitution?

It does seem just a little bit self-serving, doesn't it?

American history, and your own political position just so happen to perfectly fit into your definition of "justified violence".

Kinda cute, ain't it?

ME: "I wonder if you'd today support a violent socialist uprising against western imperialism? Would you support such violence?"

Larry: A socialist uprising? NO.


Simple as that? I thought you said there was no left and right - but here you are dismissing "socialism" by reflex.

Larry: Would I support a 2nd civil war and secession from the union? YES

But not if it was a "socialist" secession?

How come, if there's no left or right?

Larry: the Declaration of Independence grants American citizens to do so. [and its NOT terrorism, assface!]

But not if it is "socialist"?

How come, if there's no left or right?

ME: "Von Brunn certainly was a rightwing nut.

You seek to deny white supremacism is (extreme) "right wing"?"

Larry: Is that why he hated McCain, BOTH Bush's and FOX News????? All things considered RIGHT wing.


But come on, larry? WHY did he hate those elements of the right? It isn't enough to simply see that Von Brunn had differences with elements of the right. That isn't enough to claim he was *not* rightwing. We have to look at THE REASONS he disagreed with those elements of the right - and in the wider context of his overall views.

I think it's an interesting topic, one that deserves its own space. I'd happily explore Von Brunn's views with you, and we can examine them, and see why we believe they are left, right, or neither. We can examine whether Von Brunn's views were left/right/neither, AND at the same time see whether there's anything to this left/right/neither thing.

If you are interested, why not write something on WHY Von Brunn is not "rightwing".....and I'll make my case why he is. Also make the wider case why there's no left/right, and I'll make the case why there is. Up for it? You can print my case here alongside yours, and I'll put yours on my blog too. No doubt neither of us are likely to change our minds, but it would be useful and interesting nevertheless?

the_last_name_left said...

L: I dont label things right wing/left wing. I use those terms ONLY to differentiate how society sees the two, not because they really exist.

Hmmm. I don't think that's quite true. Here's you complaining about Ostroy, for example, as a "liberal leftie"........you clearly reference something you discern as "liberal lefties".

Larry: Blogger Andy Ostroy, like the rest of the liberal left in the media, has completely lost it. Yesterday on his blog The Ostroy Report, he wrote a ridiculous story called, “I Want To Be Black”, a 485-word article that, although sections of it are obviously tongue-in-cheek, it reflects a mind-blowing obsession the liberal left have with our new President, Barack Obama.

There's no such thing as left/right yet you choose to attack a PARTICULAR characteristic which YOU DETERMINED was representative of a group of people which YOU CALL "left".

If there's no such thing as "left/right" how on earth do a group of people (all on the non-existent left) share a particular discernible view?

You group them together, and attack them, as the left.......then you claim there's no left/right - only "right".

It's a rhetorical trick - you attack "the left" - then deny there's a left-right. That leaves you in the default position - on the right - from where you declare there is no opposition - just "wrong".

Again, we can see the same sort of self-serving rationale operating.

I can declare there is no left/right? My ideas and ethics are simply "right" - the others are wrong. There's no left/right - you're just WRONG, ok, Larry?

So let's all just agree on what is right, right? And what I believe is right........right?

As there's no left or right we can readily begin transferring all private property into social ownership......abolition of class and such like.

Good - I am glad we agree this is the right thing to do, and that we can both ackowledge there is no possible opposition to it.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: There IS no right/left wing-----only the APPEARANCE of it so the politicians and talking heads can establish class warfare.

The class war comes first.

How does a false left/right lead to class warfare?

If there's class warfare, then we have the basis for a distinction of left/right.

You and I have more in common in class terms than we do in our political beliefs.

The difference in our political beliefs is real.......our class interests are shared, and they're real too. Generally I'd say "left" works FOR class interest of the working class - the "right" for the interests of the ruling class/status quo.

The left is egalitarian, hence multicultural, internationalist, social. Whereas the right supports inequality, through private property laws, the unequal distribution of capital for production and consumption, nationalism, elitism, inequality, racism.

I'm with you in so far as it's wrong to assume someone who is rightwing is a racist, say. Or that racism is a characteristic found only in the right.

And yes, the terms are a bit fluffy, and shouldn't lead one's thought too much, maybe.

Even if it is oftentimes a crude one, the Left/right distinction is a reasonable and legitimate one. Differences *are* real........and we need to recognise them.

In your case I'd suggest by recognising class war is not simply produced as a product of a false left/right divide. Class war is the basic position - the basic reality. All else flows from that....obviously? (I don't expect you to agree........but that's because differences are real........and those differences are crudely designated as left/right. Why pretend we don't disagree? Why pretend we don't hold discernible and different political / ethical / philosophical positions? Makes no sense to me.)

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: Why do morons like you [who call themselves LEFT wing] call 9/11 truthers RIGHT wing, and people who say theyre RIGHT wing call us FAR lefties????

Interesting point.

Part of the problem is a general political ignorance. Particularly amongst Americans, sorry to say.

One can as easily ask why so many Americans characterise Obama as "A COMMUNIST!!!!" whilst others characterise Obama as "FASCIST!!!!" Many even equate communism and fascism........

This is all evidence of ignorance - and a symptom of over 100 years of a most extensive propaganda campaign.

Rightwingers who consider Truthers as embarassing nutballs are happy to claim that the left is responsible for the Truthers. That suits them fine.

And please note - I have never claimed 911 Troof is a purely rightwing movement.

My claim about 911 Troof is that it is now an ostensibly a rightwing movement, which has long been exploited by propaganda elements of the far-right.

My argument is that 911 Troof attracts far-right jew-haters for very good reasons : they see in it an expression of their own views, and a means to publicise their views on the back of a highly contentious issue.

The far-right embrace of 911 troof happened for lots of reasons -- one of the main ones being the chance to exploit the theme of "It's Israel". That is now one of the dominant themes in 911 Troof - it's crawling with antisemitism - and provides a justification for it.

Also, 911 conspiracy has provided an avenue for the far-right to access and influence even leftwing discourse and agendas. And to recruit.

Those are my political points about 911 Troof - not that it is ONLY a rightwing movement. Elements of the left have been seduced by the 911 conspiracy stuff too. There are fools on the left and right.

And "the Movement" is now ostensibly rightwing. Chomsky disregards it, Howard Zinn does, the socialist workers party uk do, I do......... :D

911 Troof has kinda boiled down to two competing schools - which overlap considerably:

1) the NWO did it
2) the Jews did it

There's a certain interchangeability between those, of course. Bankers, for example. That has had long use as a proxy term for "JOOOOS". Just as "FINACIAL POLITICAL MEDIA INDUSTRY ELITES" has..........just as "GLOBALISTS" can be seen as.......

If one believes in a World Jewish Conspiracy, as many Troofers clearly do, then phrases such as "the powers that be" or "the New World Order" are mere cover terms for the real target - JOOOOS.

the_last_name_left said...

This is my criticism of 911 Truth - and Alex Jones in particular: his vague terms such as NWO and BANKING ELITES operate as code for anti-semitism.

Sure, that'd be a questionable claim.......if it wasn't for Alex Jones' close and continual ties with people whom certainly DO believe in a world jewish conspiracy.

Alex Jones promotes these people, but both he and his guests very carefully substitute terms like "NWO" when his guests would NORMALLY use the word "Jew".

Alex Jones must know this about his guests. Clearly his guests understand "the rules".......the game they're playing.

Do you seriously think Alex Jones has such close ties to Willis Carto whilst remaining ignorant of what Willis Carto really believes?

To your eternal credit, once you looked at Willis Carto for yourself you removed the links to his site.

Do you think Alex Jones is less aware than you are of what Willis Carto stands for?

What does that say about Alex Jones? That he's an ignorant dolt whom knows nothing about people he promotes, or that Alex knows exactly what Willis Carto is about, and supports him all the same?

This is an example of EXACTLY how the far-right has gained such traction amongst 911 Troof.

The fact Alex Jones can be so prominent in 911 Troof whilst no voices are raised about Willis Carto shows EXACTLY why 911 Troof can be described as a crypto-fascist movement.

Of course that doesn't mean that Larry the Truther must necessarily be a fascist. I've never said that, and never meant to imply it, or even suggest it.

For one thing, you appear to have found Willis Carto beyond the pale - you removed his site banner from your blog. That's a very good position to have taken.

So consider Alex Jones? And how readily he and the rest of 911 Truth embraces Willis Carto without the least complaint?

My complaints about Willis Carto's presence and influence on 911 Truth are most often deleted - and they're always ridiculed.

the_last_name_left said...

But you deleted the Willis Carto link, Larry.

If Truthers really cared about their movement, and had genuinely good intentions for it, like you, they'd ALL be deleting the links to Willis Carto - and breaking all their attachments to Willis Carto (and his various numerous propaganda vehicles AND what they represent)

Instead of doing what you did - deleting the link - 911 Truth generally PROTECTS and DEFENDS its associations with Willis Carto.

This is evidence of how useful to fascism 911 Troof has been, and how suscpetible to and corrupted by fascism 911 Troof has become.

My point is there is a major crossover of the far-right into 911 Truth, and vice versa. The evidence is everywhere.

No - that doesn't mean I think YOU must be a fascist. It doesn't mean everyone in 911 Truth is a fascist - nor that 911 Truth is ONLY fascist.

You should understand that the presence of fascism in 911 Truth is painful to me.

I don't seek to discredit 911 Truth by labelling it as fascist.......I seek to raise awareness of the creeping fascism *within* 911 Truth movement......the DANGER *posed to* 911 Truth movement by fascism......

Of course, I no longer subscribe to the view of 911 as conspiracy any longer (in part because I recognised the fascism within it, and the corruption of evidence and argument that it led to.)

*BUT* that doesn't mean I would rather the movement didn't reject fascism. I wish it would. It might actually have a chance of getting somewhere and gaining some credibility. (I simply don't believe the current evidence justies arguments about "inside job", "NWO", whatever. For me, the evidence clearly suggests the "official story".....though I have my own take on it.)

But I do care about the 911 Truth Movement - the ideal of its attempt to find a "real history" is a positive thing.

My complaint generally is 1) 911 Truth is wrong, and 2) 911 Truth is corrupted by fascism.

Those complaints are related........911 Troof's errors and flaws can be seen as products of the ongoing corruption from fascism.

Surely we can at least agree that embracing fascism is not going to help "Truth" - whether about 911 or anything else? Fascism isn't going to help increase liberty, justice, peace and tranquility?

We can agree on that? Surely?

If so, then you can understand my deep concern over presence of fascism within 911 Truth Movement - even if I disagree with the arguments and perspective of 911 Truth?

And whether we call it left or right, we can agree fascism poses a danger, including to 911 Truth?

Similarly, my attempts at raising the spectre of the threat of fascism to 911 Truth actually serve to *defend* the movement, right? Even though I disagree with its claims......

the_last_name_left said...

400 years..........

of slavery

It's Peter Tosh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsnY3ZpCcw

Anonymous said...

the last dick fraud name left has made himself look like a complete jackass again. no proof reflects all and debunks nothing. but in all still hasnt answered the wooden stove question. larry this guys a dick. you own this guy. hes your bitch. hes a fuckin queenie.