Re: Support Rosie O'Donnell and Free Speech!!

Revenge of Sith wrote:

Sean is a Trotskyite who naively believes that Lenin
and Trotsky were good guys (which isn't true) and that Stalin and the
Soviet rulers after him betrayed the ideals of the Bolshevik
revolution, so I'm surprised that even Sean would cite this article.

Once again: The article was about Ronald Reagan. I did not write the article. I never claimed to agree with the article's author about every single thing in the world. I posted it because someone had mentioned the wrongness of Ronald Reagan, and the article was about the wrongness of Ronald Reagan. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

When I first posted the article in my journal three years ago, I included a note about how I didn't quite agree with the whole paragraph about the Soviet Union. When I reposted it here, I considered carrying over that note. 'Nah', I said to myself. 'It's an article about Reagan, not the USSR. Doing that would make me look not only anal, but ridiculously sectarian and full of my own ideology. I'll just print the article in its original form -- there couldn't POSSIBLY be anyone out there with nothing better to do than pick apart that one paragraph in the midst of several screens worth of article that are actually relevant to the point. Especially since the paragraph never actually says anything *supporting* the USSR politically or morally, but merely states a *fact* about how its existence helped inspire rebel movements against US domination throughout the Third World.'

I should have known better. This is Usenet. There's ALWAYS someone with nothing better to do but fight about things that aren't even IN your post.

I am replying to no more comments about this. This whole idiotic argument started by the only two people who missed the fucking point (Revenge of Sith and BlackMonk) has now quite greatly overshadowed the original article, and successfully drowned out the important point it was supposed to make. I wish I hadn't helped by getting dragged into this idiocy.

Everyone else got the point, except you two. So you should probably assume the problem is with, well ... you two. That is sufficiently clear at this point, and now the 'debate' is over. You lose.

(PS: There's a difference between being 'good guys' and being intelligent, successful, well-intentioned political leaders, who correctly analysed the socioeconomic forces at the root of 20th century history, despite what they may have told you at Straw Man, Inc™. I hear Isaac Newton wasn't very nice, either. Fortunately, no one is stupid enough to think that has anything to do with the validity of his scientific ideas.)

--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'I ask you, is almost dying any excuse for not being fun?' --Dr Gregory House
.