There is extreme hypocrisy and denial of facts in US foreign policy. The rationale seems to be, "Yes, we're lying, but they're our lies. We're murdering, but they're our murders. We're hypocrites, but it is our hypocrisy."

That Nobel Peace Prize becomes a bigger joke everyday.

WingnutSteve said on 3/7/2013 @ 5:24 pm PT...

That Nobel Peace Prize becomes a bigger joke everyday.

I completely agree with you on this point (if not many other things, lol). What were they thinking, nominating Obama?

WingnutSteve @2 wrote:

That Nobel Peace Prize becomes a bigger joke everyday.

The President had already entered the theater of the absurd when he invoked Martin Luther King during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

As I observed in We Must Be Insane:

While it is appropriate that WingnutSteve level the same critique with respect to the Obama drone policy, it would be refreshing if, just this once, he would acknowledge that the same criticism should be leveled against Republicans who supported or now support the same policy, like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

I've always been critical of the drone policy of this countries leaders. and it has always made me sick to my stomach the innocent loss of life, especially in countries we aren't even at war with. That goes for when dubya was in office as it goes for the current idiot in chief.

Probably should have asked the question first vice your typical ad hominum type attack Ernie. Bush and Cheney were monsters, regardless of party. So is the current turd we have.

Just curious Steve --- and since you're pseudonymous here, hopefully you won't mind saying --- who did you vote for for President in 2000 and 2004?

Good question, Brad. Bet it wasn't Gore, Kerry or a Green Party candidate.

BTW, Steve, you latest comment is the first I recall where you've criticized Republicans. Can you point to one before now?

My name is Steve Snyder and I live in San Diego California.

I'm a registered Republican. I'm not in the least bit conservative. I'm in favor of gay marriage, I'm anti-death penalty, I'm pro-choice, I strongly support 100% publicly funded elections, I'm pro-gun control.

Each and every bradblog regular watches more Fox News on a daily basis than I watch in a year. I know this because you all are ALWAYS telling me what Fox News tells me to think.

In 2000 I voted for Bush because he was A. not Gore, and B. that great leader who was able to reach across party lines as governor of Texas and bring people together (snark). Wow, that worked out great. In 2004 I voted for Badnarik because Bush and Kerry were both idiots. In many areas I'm more of a Libertarian anyway.

Any other irrelevant questions please let me know.

No Ernie, I can't off the top of my head recall ever criticizing a Republican on here. First off, you've never asked. From the first time I disagreed with one of your opinions you had me pegged as a faux news brainwashed wingnut and even when I have tried to agree with you on things you won't budge from your view.

Secondly I find myself trying to piece through much of the muck that YOU try to pass off as news such as the lying headline that the GOP monsters are trying to destroy the post office (I'm too lazy to look up the actual words, you know what I mean). When confronted with actual facts that it was indeed a bipartisan effort you ad hominum as per your MO.

I feel no reason and it serves no purpose to simply agree with the leftist views of this site as everybody else mostly does. I read the pieces, I look for an interesting opinion or something I feel is worthy of trying to spark a conversation. I have on occasion just simply replied nice work to both you and Brad. What I get for attempting to point out any disparity between reality and the "written word" is mostly a bunch of shit thrown my way. That's okay, I don't mind one bit.

WingnutSteve @ 8:

Appreciate your response. Just wanted to comment on this part...

I'm a registered Republican. I'm not in the least bit conservative. I'm in favor of gay marriage, I'm anti-death penalty, I'm pro-choice, I strongly support 100% publicly funded elections, I'm pro-gun control.

FYI, being in favor of "gay marriage" is a conservative position. That's why Ted Olsen is defending it at the Supreme Court, and why the British Conservative Party recently passed legislation to make it legal in Great Britain. There is nothing not conservative about supporting the Constitution's Equal Protection clause.

Being "anti-death penalty" is also a conservative position. There is no bigger government than one which kills its own citizens (not to mention the lack of equal protection that minorities routinely receive when tried on capitol offenses.)

Being "pro-choice" is a conservative position. Again, Big Government has no business encroaching on anybody's healthcare, not to mention the notion of putting a government beauracrat between a woman and her doctor (as the fake "conservatives" like to pretend they are against as a way to oppose "ObamaCare".)

I don't know that I'd regard "publicly fund elections" as necessarily conservative, though it's not necessary not conservative, in that it places all candidates on an equal footing and level playing field, which is (in theory) a conservative value.

As to being "pro-gun control", it depends on the "control" before we can determine whether it's conservative or not. Either way, it was supported by conservative icons such as Ronald Reagan, so that is not a necessarily non-conservative idea either --- unless Reagan was a commie pinko progressive.

Of course, I share all of your positions as stated above, despite the fact that you routinely attempt to marginalize me as a "leftist" or "liberal" or whatever. For that matter, I believe Ernie does as well. Just FYI.

Steve Snyder writes:

I can't off the top of my head recall ever criticizing a Republican on here. First off, you've never asked.

So you have to be specifically asked before you will criticize anything GOP?

Next, Steve writes:

I find myself trying to piece through much of the muck that YOU try to pass off as news such as the lying headline that the GOP monsters are trying to destroy the post office.

Fact: The headline, which was not drafted by me, reads: "U.S. Postal Service Victimized by GOP Privatization Scheme."

The body of the article accurately reports:

Despite the unassailable fact that "privatization" has been a staple of the American hard right for half a century and that the bill in question was sponsored by a Republican, passed by a lame duck session of a GOP-controlled Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush, you claim that attributing this monstrous bill to the GOP amounts to a "lie" because two Democrats co-sponsored it.

I have no problem with condemning Democratic complicity, as I have done repeatedly at this blog when it comes to the perpetuation of the so-called 'war on terror,' Clinton, with the aide of Bush I and Reagan, ramming NAFTA through on the fast track, the Obama administration's extension of these "free trade" agreements, or its betrayal of a single-payer system or even a public option when it comes to healthcare.

But to attempt, as you did, to utilize evidence of complicity on the part of some (but not all) Democrats in the enactment of the PAEA as a means to absolve the GOP and its privatization policies from all connection to that abomination was thoroughly disingenuous and the mark of a dishonest ideologue. Indeed, you even went so far as to claim that the article I wrote should have been labeled: "U.S. Postal Service Victimized by Democrat Privatization Scheme."

I didn't attempt to absolve the GOP of anything Ernie. I simply stated that your headline was intellectually dishonest because it was a bipartisan effort. Both sides are at fault, both sides rushed the legislation through. If the house voice vote was at all in question a roll call vote could have been demanded, and it wasn't. Any Democratic Senator could have taken a stand and stopped the legislation through procedural rules, none did. Because they were in favor of it....

The headline is yours. I see no citation for anyone but you on the story. And it is a lie.

Brad, we'll have to agree to disagree on your points. To me, you are describing a constitutionalist and not a conservative. Certainly not a conservative as it's typically used today. But point taken, and my words should have been "I'm not in the least bit a wingnut".

WingnutSteve @ 12:

I simply stated that your headline was intellectually dishonest because it was a bipartisan effort. ... Any Democratic Senator could have taken a stand and stopped the legislation through procedural rules, none did. Because they were in favor of it....

First, the headline was mine, not Ernie's. His original submission was almost the same but did not include the word "GOP". That was my addition.

The bill was originally a Republican bill that eventually found Dem co-sponsors. It was an omnibus Postal Service bill, so there was a lot in it. Much more than just the unprecedented requirement that the USPS be required to fund their pension plan 75 years into the future. I have no doubt that the Ds who eventually voted for it did so after they had what they wanted out of it in exchange for what the Rs had wanted in the bill.

Ernie is correct in that it has been Republicans that have, for years, been attempting to cut the knees out from under the Post Office. If you have any actual evidence to support your charge that Democrats are attempting to either privatize or undermine the USPS, I hope you'll share it with us. If you have any evidence that Ds "were in favor" of doing so, I hope you'll feel free to share that as well. I am aware of none, including any evidence that Ds had participated in the inclusion of the provisions that Ernie was writing about.

WingnutSteve @ 13:

To me, you are describing a constitutionalist and not a conservative. Certainly not a conservative as it's typically used today.

Constitutionalism used to be a conservative value. But, as to your second sentence, I completely agree. The term has been bastardized by opportunists who are anything but conservative. From George W. Bush to Fox "News" to Rush Limbaugh. That's why, you will note that I do not ever refer to them as conservative, but rather as "conservative" (with quotes) or "fake conservatives" or, more often, just Rightwingers or Republicans (when I'm feeling generous.)

I'll accede to your point. It's Friday night after a horrifically long ten straight days of work (130+ hours) and I'm going to take my wife out for dinner and a drink. Happy Friday Brad (and Ernie too).

It is interesting that you voted for Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian candidate for President, Steve. The 1980 Libertarian candidate for Vice President was none other than David Koch.

The 1980 Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of most federal agencies, including the FBI, the Security and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. It also wanted to abolish Social Security, minimum wage laws, all personal and corporate income taxes and called for reducing government to the protecting "individual rights."

Libertarianism reflects the radical rejection of a core governmental function recognized in both the preamble and Article I of the U.S. Constitution --- to promote the general welfare. Privatization is central to its goals.

The renowned conservative columnist William F. Buckley, Jr. referred to the Kochs and Libertarianism as "Anarcho-Totalitarianism."

Outstanding job of once again showcasing your inane ability to state the completely irrelevant Ernie. I bet you voted for Kerry in 2004, the Democratic nominee. And I'm sure you are aware that one of the candidates for the democratic nomination in 1976 was Robert Byrd, he released his delegates to Carter. The same Robert Byrd who (with 17 other democrats) filibustered the 1964 Civil rights act. The same Robert Byrd who was an active memberand recruiter for the kkk. See, I can do the same thing....

Nice try, Mr. Snyder aka WingnutSteve. Robert Byrd, the individual, in his youth, was associated with the KKK, but what you call the "Democrat" Party of the 21st Century has absolutely no connection with the policies of that racist, neo-Nazi organization.

"Privatization" and a rejection of the core function of government recognized by the U.S. Constitution (promotion of the common good) has been and remains a core tenet of libertarianism. That is a fact that is exceedingly relevant to the current thread of our discussions.

The only question is whether you were aware of that basic component of libertarianism when you voted for a Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate in 2004.

BTW, I didn't vote for Obama in the last election. I voted for Jill Stein.

I think that your interpretation of "provide for the common good" and mine are two vastly different things.

Remembering back on one of your earlier writings of a year or two ago where you outlined what we "must" do to repair our economy, a core philosophy you held was that we "must" bring back JFK era tax rates. Having read that, I think I can surmise what you feel to be "the common good". I obviously disagree with you on that.

I am aware of the basic tenets of libertarianism and don't agree with all of them. Just like I don't agree 100% with republican or democratic philosophy. They all have good and bad..

Actually, Steve, I called for a restoration of the Eisenhower tax rates, which was 91% for the top income earners. You remember that guy, don't you? He placed an (R) at the end of his name.

Ahhh, I stand corrected. You said Eisenhower and I thought you said JFK. You remember that guy who realized that Eisenhower era rates were wayyyyyyy too high? He placed a (D) at the end of his name.

Point of fact, Steve: Eisenhower raised taxes to pay off the enormous debt incurred by World War 2, back when Republicans used to believe in paying for wars and stuff.