RUSSIA!!!!

Brendan Deiz

Russia

Comments

  • Truth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow, people in the US still have a lot to learn about History. Stay in school, read up on real (unedited) history and talk with "New Europe" citizen's. You'll learn a lot.

    Here's a start, ask yourself why the DNC is trying to edit the DNC Party history which is located here.

    http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html

    You won't find the answer anywhere on the DNC website but you will here:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html?mod=opinion_journal_federation

    Enjoy and learn.

  • Evan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Truth...

    Oh yes, because Republicans have things under such great control this past 8 years. A (scary) model for the world to (hopefully not) follow.

    I am really, really, scared of a Democratic change.

    Oh, wait, I'm not!!!

    Bring it on!

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gee, Truth, I bet you're the only one reading Blue Oregon who knows that Democrats [particularly those from the south] were racists before the mid-sixties.

    Then the racists all switched their registration to Republican, and there they remain.

  • (Show?)

    Dang it Brendan.

    You didn't even mention the Barbary Pirates or the Hapsburgs, or even Replicants, and why is one of your cartoon characters obviously some sort of bearded terris?

    Insidious.....

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought the guy in the cartoon was Shel Silverstein.

  • Truth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Evan - The R's haven't scrubbed the last 8 years off their website, nor is it close to being as insidious as the Dem's 50 years.

    Tom - The racists didn't switch parties - they changed their way's (finally) and became US Senators (Byrd). The R's both passed the Civil Rights bills by a much larger majority than the Dems within their party (refer to Al's Daddy). Also, it was the R's who won the Civil War.

    It's an old wives tale to believe the Dems' switched to R's and remain racists. Instead they all pretty much died and attrition removed the D's dominance in the South.

    If that old wives tale was true then why doesn't the D's put that into their website! Would make for great political theater and fodder. Instead, it's not true and thus purged from the D's history.

    I'm just glad there is real journalism left in the US. Imagine if all journalist got a tingle in their leg at the mention of a Presidential candidate's name.

    Drawing inspiration from a Presidential candidate or President is both dangerous and sopohmoric. I have been around enough R's to know that not even the staunchest R draws inspiration from ANY political figure.

    O should be crushing McCain, just as the generic D crushes the generic R ticket. If he focuses on cutting the wasteful spending the R's and Bushies advanced at all levels of government and balancing the Federal Budget, he'd win 70 to 30! Instead he's trying to convince people government isn't doing enough so he's tied with McCain. He needs to read more JFK and less Teddy Kennedy.

  • (Show?)

    Speaking of Russians... (Isn't this post about Russians?)

    I saw this awesome photo this morning of a labor leader (with whom I shared a steak sandwich in January) in Georgia, marching bare-handed to make demands on ARMED Russian troops. From the Solidarity Center:

    They went up to the frontline and a 15-minute-long argument ensued between the two Russian officers in charge. Brother [Irakli] Petriashvili explained that Russian bombardments of civilian targets, including the workplaces of their members, had killed 10 oil terminal workers in the port city of Poti, seven civilian employees in the city of Senaki, and a railway worker in Kaspi. Their “peacekeeping” activity had left hundreds of non-combatant Georgian workers in hospitals. Their “preventive” measures had left tens of thousands of workers without a livelihood, without the wherewithal to feed their families, and in the case of the refugees, without even a roof over their heads.

    I met Irakli on my first day at work in the San Francisco office of the ILWU last winter. He was an imposing presence, a former professional rugby player, and had a delegation of about 10 Georgian union leaders and State House translators with him. I somehow ended up in charge of showing the group around (gulp), answering their questions (gulp), and taking them out for American food -- steak sandwiches. Through a translator, Irakli asked me if all American dockworkers were as pretty as me. What could I say? I told him yes.

    Here's the photo and story.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To Truth who knows not his own name:

    While your assertion of inspiration by political candidates being sophomoric may have a grain of 'truth', it is also irrelevent. Trading another demagogue for the current fascist-in-chief would be dangerous, but that is unnecessary. One can draw inspiration from the movement to expel the enemies of democracy from high office, and to install a reasonable, humble man backed by a party that respects the Constitution.

    Brandon,

    Do not listen to those filled with hatred and cynicism.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Truth,

    I was writing about the voters, not just just elected officials. A party may be led by politicians, but it is made up of voters.

    As to racist Republicans, take it from the horse's mouth:

    RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Brendan

    Pay no attention to my poor spelling, either!

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Truth,

    I was writing about the voters, not just just elected officials. A party may be led by politicians, but it is made up of voters.

    As to racist Republicans, take it from the horse's mouth:

    RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

  • (Show?)

    Hey Brendan, I like your post a lot. I hope you're not discouraged by the pissing match going on up there. Keep them coming!

  • (Show?)

    The racists didn't switch parties - they changed their way's (finally) and became US Senators (Byrd). The R's both passed the Civil Rights bills by a much larger majority than the Dems within their party (refer to Al's Daddy). Also, it was the R's who won the Civil War.

    Right but The Party of Lincoln and today's GOP are like Dixiecrats to Democrats which is where you're not differentiating. Dr. King was a Republican for God's sake. You can't call the Democrat of 1954 or 1960 - especailly not the Southern Democrat - the same as today's Democrat because they're not the same! Strom Thurmond served his first two terms as a Democrat after having run on the States Rights Democratic (Dixiecrat) platform. He then changed parties - just like many others did. Or they just died/retired and were replaced by Republicans. Some of them changed their viewpoints because they finally got it, some of them changed their viewpoints because they had to - and the rest of them became Republicans, lost elections, retired, or died. LBJ totally pissed off his cohorts in the Senate by straying from the segregationist mentality and, God forbid, not only signing it into law but using all of his power as a former Senator to get the job done. Brilliant and tenacious.

    You cannot compare today's Democratic Party and today's GOP to the parties of 50 years ago and call it an apples-to-apples comparison. But if you want to compare them on this issue, look at these numbers for the Civil Rights Act of 64:

    The original House version:

    Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

    The Senate version:

    Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

    Even though you can't compare the parties of then with the parties of now - the numbers still don't back up what you're saying.

    I thought the guy in the cartoon was Shel Silverstein.

    OMG, I totally needed that today! LOL.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Brenden,

    Nice little list of fears. But they're petty next to the mother of all concocted fears, Gore's Global Warming.

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So I'm trying to figure out if this current troll-outbreak on OB is just one person or a group. Or maybe Kari's absence has emboldened them ... Funny cartoon, BTW!

  • My kingdom, for a hypocrite (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh I get it: Republicans are homophobic racists who miss the cold war. We ought to like Russia no matter who they invade because the cold war is over.

    Calling this cartoon sophomoric would be giving it too much credit.

  • Truth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    cc - Without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Funny, your N/S breakdown just makes my point. Look at the number of segregationist like Al Gore, Sr. who opposed the bill. Attrition swung the South toward Republican's as the Democrat segregationists passed away.

    Also: In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. Educate yourself: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

    I too was like Brendan, long ago. Then I grew up, became educated and found out that conservatives/capitalists are just as compassionate and generous as anyone else. They aren't the "boogie man" that progressives make them out to be.

    Brendan - No party or political movement has a monopoly on compassion or generosity. It's not your fault that people have told you non-progressives "take away" rights or hate or are "afraid" of minorities as your cartoon indicates. Again, talk and learn from people who lived under progressive/communism/socialism and then lived in a democratic society. There are several in Portland. They'll tell you, as history shows, the more powerful a governments and their programs become (FEMA, health care, welfare, etc) becomes the less liberty and freedom the citizen have.

    Expand your mind and read other blogs that aren't as hateful and cynical as BO or other nutroot blogs like DailyKos. You'll see the stereotype and image they portray others to be (sexist, homphobes, racist, etc) aren't correct at all. Good luck.

  • (Show?)

    We ought to like Russia no matter who they invade because the cold war is over.

    Actually the Bushies and the McCainiacs were reliably reactionary as if their own policies and behavior with the Georgian gummint had nothing to do with the Russkies rolling the tanks.

    It was also pretty hilarious to hear them tut-tutting Putin about how in the 21st century you don't just go around invading sovereign nations on your own hook.......Well it would have been hilarious if not for the inconvenient dead people.

    Is anyone else reminded of the First Big Adventure in the Gulf when one of George's diplomats got into a little trouble where Saddam thought he had the green light to straighten those danged Kuwaitis out?

    <hr/>

    Of course it was George II himself that looked into PutiPoot's eyes and saw a fellow member of the Neo-Village People's Macho Men Club........He was wrong only to the extent that Putin really is an accomplished Thug while George and Dick are pretty pale imitations.

    I'm guessing that there's some additional machismo accrued when you actually attach the electrodes to the Terris yourself once in a while.

  • Gregor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Truth - You just wrote "They'll tell you, as history shows, the more powerful a governments and their programs become (FEMA, health care, welfare, etc) becomes the less liberty and freedom the citizen have."

    We've left the cartoon, which was poignant, and are now discussing FEMA, healthcare and welfare, as though they are examples of governmental power. HOW ABSURD!!! FEMA is an aid during disasters, healthcare has health and care right in the word itself and welfare goes to the poor. Why is any of that NOT compassionate???

    Let's look at what the Dubya has done. FISA decapitated, Patriot Act, Homeland Security [a name borrowed from Fascist Germany], and the Transportation Security Administration. I doubt you're a thinking man because I don;t even need a footnote to dismantle your propositions/theories/fantasies.

    The one thing I will grant you is that some conservatives and even Rs are compassionate, but their blind support of this present Administration does nothing for compassionate display. Compassionate has left the party unless you agree that the Katrina victims were better off in a football stadium in Texas then they were in their own homes.

  • (Show?)

    ending italics, carry on...

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    one more time

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Truth wrote:

    Then I grew up, became educated and found out that conservatives/capitalists are just as compassionate and generous as anyone else.

    They certainly hide it well. Perhaps their great humility prevents public demonstration of this compassion and generosity.

  • truth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom, They don't hide it nor do they flaunt it. You just need to know where to look - Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

    The best way though is to befriend and really get to know conservatives. You'll be surprised on their compassion and generosity.

    It comes down to the vehicle in which to look through the poor and less fortunate. Through the government or through private/religious organizations. We as a nation are very generous - all political stripes.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    truth,

    I have known quite a few conservatives and capitalists, even a few wealthy ones. They are often warm and generous in their private lives. However, their ideologies blind them to the consequences of their political positions - consequences they usually avoid because of their privileged situation. Such ignorance is quite convenient in preserving their high opinion of themselves. It can be deadly to many others not so unfortunate.

  • Idler (unverified)
    (Show?)

    their ideologies blind them to the consequences of their political positions - consequences they usually avoid because of their privileged situation. Such ignorance is quite convenient in preserving their high opinion of themselves. It can be deadly to many others not so unfortunate.

    Great description of the so called "Limousine liberals" (except that I would have thrown in "sanctimony" or "moral vanity") and how their ideology about sexuality & family, education and law enforcement are working out in the inner cities, and among the lower economic strata generally.

    But they mean well!

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Idler,

    Your comment suggests you are one of those who think abstinence-based sex education is a good idea, in spite of all the statistical evidence to the contrary.

  • Idler (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom,

    Your comment suggests you are more prone to strike back defensively rather than seriously consider any challenge to your orthodoxy?

    I'd be happy to discuss whether there's any merit to "abstinence-based sex education" and to examine the research. However, that wasn't something I was thinking about when I wrote what I did. I think it has a limited connection to the fact that A) many fathers fail to take responsibility for their children, B) criticism of this behavior is extremely weak or non-existent among the parties I allude to, and C) the consequences are disastrous.

    <h2>But you tell me, Tom, what's the statistical evidence in favor of single-parent families?</h2>

connect with blueoregon