I GOT FReeper HATE MAIL!

Oh yeah baby. I finally got hate mail for my blog that wasn't "Fuck you stoopid lib traitor commie" or something. This guy is trying to rebuke multiple points in my blog. In the first response, he is mentioning one entry of mine that said that Coulter never mentioned domestic policy. In the second he rants about SDI in some inane fashion. And the third is referring to the Contras. He quotes my entire response to Ann, leaving out her quote. Basically she went on about how the Contras were good people that frolicked in the meadows with the bunnies. I corrected that. Here they are, baby:


"John K." <m******@hotmail.com> wrote:
Look at the title of the book. The book is about treason. You know, helping the enemy? Of course it's going to be about foreign policy. You are going after things to justify your politics, but was there spy's in the governments of the libs? YES. And they knew it and protected them. TREASON!!!

My reply:
Wow, it's great to know that you rebuked one of my few dozen points, you genius you. But in fact, if you actually read the book (which would mean that you'd have to sit down for more than an hour without watching Fox News), you'd realize that she strays from the treason topic long enough to say that we're anti-Semetic and pushing abortion on America in her conclusion (she doesn't back this up, she just pushes it in her last paragraph). The whole book shifts focus several times. If you watched her Larry King interview, you'd know that she admitted that liberals weren't actually guilty of treason. Of course, she was covering her ass, because only a few morons bought her story. Also, I haven't even touched the Communists in the State Dept. issue, which is her only legit point of a treason (but it doesn't apply to all liberals, just the spies).
But thanks for being somewhat articulate, it's refreshing after the "Fuck U lib traitor!!!" and such.


"John K." <m******@hotmail.com> wrote:
On page 181 of Coulter's epic expose on liberal thought, Treason, she states that "The left's idea for winning the Cold War was...opposing a missile defense shield."

If this was indeed going to be a waste of money, than why were those opposed to it, the despots that happened to be enemies of the US. You know the ones, Russia, China, N Korea, & the democrats?

My reply:
Well bucko, did it work? No. SDI was a failure. I don't care if Satan opposed it, because it didn't work. Just because our enemies opposed it doesn't mean it's the "cool thing to do!" even if it doesn't work. Thanks for skipping around the actual problem here, you're remarkable.


"John K." <m******@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wow, Ann, scathing. While Ann paints the Sandinistas out to be the largest source of evil ever to exist and the Contras to be the life-savers that the Nicaraguan people always needed, this is far from the case. It is true that the Sandinistas were corrupt and brutal (and Marxist); they rounded up political prisoners and killed rebels. The Contras were really remnants of the brutal Somoza regime that the Sandinistas overthrew in a hugely popular revolution. The Somoza leadership had brutal control over the military and national guard. Their abuses were so many and so obvious that even the U.S. denounced them when they were fighting off the Communist revolutionaries. In 1979, the Sandinistas took over. Their brutality was mainly a result of their cracking down on the Contras, who were so unpopular that they had to be based in neighboring Honduras. The Contras' tactics were disgusting. A former Contra colonel (edgar Chamorro) said "Many civilians were killed in cold blood. Many others were tortured, mutilated, raped, robbed, or otherwise abused." Chamarro also mentioned that the Contra movement "turned out to be an instrument of the U.S. government."

But I guess Ann and I just have different conceptions of freedom fighting.

Additionally, in the same speech, Mondale offered up his "complicated" solution that did what our enemies wanted to. "We need a three-pronged attack. One is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured. Secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us. And finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area." Is that what our enemies wanted, Ann? Peace? Well, we'll show them...
// posted by Peter @ 2:38 PM

If Morondale is against the commies, but not for the contras, Who the hell is he talkinf about then? Your arguement is the same as "we can't go to Iraq, no proof of WMD." "if we go to Iraq, the will use chemical weapons on our troops."
You can confuse the libs with the double talk, but not the real patriots

My reply:
The Mondale quote was responding to Coulter's assertion that his plan was complicated, and nothing else. If it confused you (surprise surprise), go find the speech in its entirety. My "arguement" is not like the Iraq argument at all. Not that I ever used those arguments (those would be arguments that seperate liberals with differing views made, or to be read like this: if Saddam has no WMD, continue with inspections, as it would be impossible for him to build them while we are in the country. If he has them, an immediate invasion is illogical). In fact, I supported the war. And in the future, try to respond to the actual point, not an additional quote. I know that you know sh*t about the Contras to begin with, but if you told me that I wouldn't have held it against you.

Great job

Kick their stupid asses!

Well thank you, and where in PA are you from?

Although I think the guy who sent you that hate mail will still think he's right. Meh.

Deep down, they know when they've been beaten. Plus I throw in the insults because I'm a bad person.

they were actually several different groups. There was the northern group, the one most people refer to as the contras--they had a number of former Somoza Guardsmen, and a large number of peasants opposed to land seizure and anti-catholic persecution. There were also groups of coastal Indians, who were very much opposed to the Sandanistas for taking them off their land (large scale relocation) and forced conscription--- Eden Pastora, a former Sandanista leader said in their Politburo, " Even the tyrant Somoza left THEM alone."
There was another major Contra group, under Eden Pastora, in the South that had a large number of ex-Sandanistas who were opposed to the increasingly authoritarian rule--these rebels were based out of Costa Rica.
Neither group was directly controlled by the CIA. But the CIA was heavily involved in support.
An example of an action that the CIA directly controlled was the mining of Nicaragua's harbors and the sabotage of coastal oil refineries. They used CIA mercenaries, not the Contras.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the supposed anti-Catholicism of the Sandinistas...

While they may have been perceived as anti-Catholic, a large number of them were actually adherents of liberation theology.

You have arrived!!

:D

they think that what she say's is the gospel...did anyone see her on Real Time...what a loser...if that's their best mouthpiece I feel sorry for them.

It isn't just that SDI doesn't work, SDI can't work.

It has no way of differentiating missiles with active warheads from decoys. A decoy missile could be a regular missile, with the warhead removed, and a large mass of metal placed into the nose to make it fly the same way as an armed missile.

The only way I can think of is if the intercept missiles chased the incoming missiles with geiger counters and went from missile to missile looking for a radioactive source.

There is not enough time for the intercept missiles to do that, which they probably won't anyway. A voley of very many decoys with a few armed missiles will overwhelm the SDI system.