Comments Posted By Marty
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments


I forgot to mention the lefties make it sound like a party and fun, when they do their protests. They do them in Dolores Park where people who don't even know about the protest can be propagandized. Anybody in the park with opposing views are made to look as if they are also willing participants. They also have them on Saturday or Sunday. You would be amazed at how many people who would like to come to a protest can't on a workday. Marty

Comment Posted By Marty On 28.02.2009 @ 00:09

Hey gang, Do you think the left throws a party and fifty thousand show up? I live in SF, CA. home of the protest. I live a couple of blocks from Dolores Park and about five blocks from the Socialist Party headquarters. When we invaded Iraq, the Socialists were out on the street handing out fliers, saying we are having a protest on Saturday. They got about twenty people. The local main stream media showed up, and kept the camera close up. They made it look and sound like the people of SF had missed out on something important. The next week they got about a hundred people. The TV stations, the newspapers/editorials etc. made it seem like thousands had shown up. It did grow, a little at a time, but it took a bazillion dollars of free press and a long time to get anything that looked like a respectable crowd. Marty

Comment Posted By Marty On 28.02.2009 @ 00:03


I think Obama doesn't think deeply enough about economics to have a really coherent economic philosophy, so I don't consider him a socialist in economic terms.

Obama is at heart a community organizer, and for those of you who dismiss that, look up Saul Alinsky and his 'Rules for Radicals' and 'Reveille for Radicals', then imagine not just organizing people in a neighborhood to go fight City Hall over a job placement center or getting the garbage picked up, but setting a whole nation at war with itself in furtherance of an agenda. THAT is what's in store, but no one seems to understand it.

He is an Obama-ist. An Obama-ist is someone who was born into an ambiguous situation and chose to make a persona of radical, racialized anti-colonialism (look at his first book). I suspect he has mellowed some since then, but the recent evidence is still that the little history he knows is of the Howard Zinn variety, and his economic instincts are somewhere slightly to the left of the EU. If it is critical of the US, his instinct is to agree.

What is scary is he seems like a bright person but shows absolutely no tendency toward honestly considering the views of others---he listens closely, as some have said, but only to figure out how to refute. He says he will be a unifier, but in one rather extraordinary paragraph in a speech last Spring, he called Hillary a sellout for working with Republicans on some bill, and then in the next breath said he was the one to unify the country. And no one noticed the contradiction.

I totally cannot understand the editor's response to David Johnson, that the burden is on him (Johnson) to prove Obama is a socialist. NO! This isn't a court of law that is going to punish Obama if he is convicted and where there is a presumption of innocence. Obama wants to be President and the mere fact of this debate means that for anyone who cares, there is doubt, and the burden is on Obama to win their vote. The editor's post obviously did not satisfy Johnson, who laid out his objections. That throws it back to the editor to counter Johnson's points, not just do a "'Shut UP!' he explained." The free pass given to the author and Obama by wrongly assigning the burden of proof is a cheap trick.

Comment Posted By Marty On 9.10.2008 @ 18:58


all true, more or less, but no one is talking about how Obama is a trained, Saul Alinsky community organizer, and that should be a serious thought for anyone who knows what that means--vicious, end-justifies-any-means including the rankest of dishonesty, no problems destroying people in pursuit of the goal, etc. No one is even mentioning that.

Comment Posted By Marty On 6.03.2008 @ 18:10


The Rezko deals smell but Obama was too smart to do anything really illegal. The real story is that he was "dealing" with Rezko when everyone in Illinois knew he (Rezko) was facing federal indictment and was radioactive---what does thats ay about Obama's arrogance, judgment, or both?

Maybe eventually someone will ask about Michelle's $300K job that she got between when her husband was elected US Senator, and sworn in. Again, I'm sure nothing illegal, but her employer (U of Chicago Hospitals) spent a lot of money on a young inexperienced lawyer if they didn't think it was at least guaranteeing access.

Comment Posted By Marty On 4.03.2008 @ 18:32

JUNE 30, 1863

Great series. My wife and my father-in-law just got back from a eight day trip to Gettysburg hitting every historical market in the area related to the battle (my wife took over 600 photos on the trip.)

In the two weeks before the left, our we- my wife, father-in-law, and our kids (11 and 9) watched the movie Gettysburg(with Tom Berringer, Jeff Daniels, Martin Sheen- as Lee, etc.) about 10 times and read about 12 different books about the battle as well as the players in the battle.

Your writings are a great supplement to what we have already learned, and quite an enjoyable read. Thank you for putting it together.

Comment Posted By Marty On 30.06.2006 @ 20:00


Rick: my apologies for misunderstanding that particular part of what you wrote.

William: the "I hate..." thing was written in reference. I just thought the whole idea of posting back and forth about each other on blogs was, well, pretty childish. There was really no need to make fun or be sulky about it; but to each their own I guess.

And for the record, the far left and the far right can both go to hell. ;)

Comment Posted By marty On 23.08.2005 @ 10:13

First, I have to mention that your blog is aptly named; nuthouse indeed.

I read through some of that guy's blog, and I hate to disappoint you, but the stuff that guy writes is far from anti-Semitic, far from anti-American. There's a difference between disliking the actions a country or a government body is taking and saying, "I hate Jews!" or "I hate Americans!" I could say I dislike communism but that doesn't mean I hate Chinese people.

Quite honestly, I think you're both picking and choosing what you want to see from each other's blogs and not reading every word. You can't read between the lines if you're not even reading the damn book. Aren't both of you grown men? Isn't the whole resulting to name-calling thing something pre-pubescent little boys do? Really, just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they're instant psychos or completely against you and your country. Same goes for him.

Debates can be intelligent, but wow, you guys sure missed the point. More points for him for actually deleting the original post (although including an outgoing email to you for all eyes to see definately isn't helping). That's what's lovely about the internet. You can destroy childish arguments rather than flaunting them as if they were something to be proud of. Extremists from the left are psycho, sure, but so are extremists from the right. So your opinions are different. Sarcasm sure isn't going to fix the problem.

I could go on, but, based on the directions such interactions take, common sense and otherwise practical means of solving issues often go ignored.

Comment Posted By marty On 23.08.2005 @ 00:16


This is a good piece, but it smacks of the Vietnam defense: "They've tied our hands behind our backs!" This time it's not the President, but the public.

Every wartime era had its dissenters, and all were vilified. Did it stop the United States in its tracks? Rarely.

Usually it takes screw-ups of monumental proportions for a war to go awry, and it's happened this time, for reasons of what Aldous Huxley called Vincible Ignorance -- willful neglect of preparations. When we prepare poorly for war and expect to play catch-up on the battlefield, it only gives our opponent a better chance at playing catch-up too.

I'm personally damned tired of everyone blaming the left as closed-minded ninnies. Lots of us are hard-headed realists when it comes to war and to peace. Why blame something abstract called "the left?" Why blame anyone? Why not simply try to do better. Yes, the US is a cacophanous place, and yes, as a country with ambitions for global empire, the world is bound to find us an easy target. But let's put up with the political divide, shall we, and GET ON WITH THE HARD WORK OF IT? The info revolution has now made the interpretation of events a much more fractious affair -- a virtual echo chamber. If we're looking for normalcy, we'll be finding it invididually this time around. Just knock off the liberal-bashing. Some of us are with you guys on this -- we're just sick of the reactionary abuse we're taking.

Get the drift?

Princeton University

Comment Posted By Marty On 6.06.2005 @ 19:14



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page