Are Eric Zuesse’s Posts Promoting Healthy Debate?

 

We’re on Day 2 of our experiment in letting Eric Zuesse post whatever he wants from a “Progressive” perspective.

There have been a slew of comments – and responses – to Eric’s posts (look at the new “Recent Comments” feature on the right sidebar).

Has this sparked a healthy debate?

Has anyone learned anything they didn’t know?

Has anyone convinced someone else that they were missing an important piece of the puzzle?

Or is this just distracting from the nonpartisan nature of the site and the hardest-hitting, core truths?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Justwatching
  • guest

    distraction from non partisan nature of your blog
    any truth seeker reads his essay and thinks the guy is full of it, not honest or not very smart

  • Carl_Herman

    I like it, GW. I’ve gotten an admission that Eric agrees the US wars began with lies, are led by US War Criminals as Presidents, are unlawful Wars of Aggression, and now need just one more piece for Eric to either document his conclusion that there’s nothing we can do to prosecute these War Criminals (he’s now claiming that battle is lost, I think based only on one federal fraud crime statute of limitation) or admit that he can stand again for arrests for War Crimes and Treason to all who have earned that dishonor.

    I’d like to have a Dem seeing that far, and then set loose among his fellow Democrats.

    I don’t think he can justify non-arrests from a legal standpoint, and I’m willing to engage in any effort he may like to make.

    • cettel

      This is Eric Zuesse:
      I keep urging arrests; but after Obama’s 11 January 2009 statement “what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past,” I knew that Obama was going to be another George W.Bush — even identified with him as “we.”

  • jadan

    Our electoral apparatus is corrupted beyond repair. Let’s hear about that. Long and tedious articles about the corrupted process are a waste of time. I believe Zeuss calls Nader a “psychopath”. OMG! There’s nothing to debate here!

  • Absolutely, GW!

    It’s astonishing, though not at all surprising, that a “investigative historian” would be framing his arguments from the historical POV established by the “aristocrats,” rather than say by Howard Zinn.

    It would be great to have paired Nader with Zuesse’s ahistorical and establishment constructed framing of the 2000 election.

    Please, please, moar MSM writers of all political persuasions! The opportunity to directly engage them is a rare treat!

  • Donna Chen

    Most of the unbearable horseshit comes from other status quo writers like John Nichols. It’s a craven obediency to partisan idiocy, distraction and the all too frequent (and important) co-option of any real resistance. Insouciant careerists, just about every one of them.and they get worse each year when a signifigant election is on the calendar. Banks will open gas chambers and these dutiful drones will be talking about the need to modestly raise the minimum slave wage, and support LGBT hiring decisions. But this is no surprise, the web inc. is controlled by corporate tyrannies who are all selling something. They wouldn’t dare talk about anything in the context of threatening the status quo. The writers who provide the most hope are the few that ignore the trivilaties, and use brutal artistry to outright condemn the violent kleptocracy. Once the general public is able to ignore writers at mass propaganda sites like Common Dreams or Info Wars (whose paid role is criticism to sustain credibility for a dying state) we’ll be closer to changing it. The rebellion will not be on the web, twitter, et al unless it’s being driven by the CIA.

  • pedro

    My vote is that it is distracting from the nature of the site. Already we have lots to read and little time to do it. Stick with the hardest-hitting, core truths.

  • wunsacon

    I consider Eric’s articles distracting and counterproductive. But, I suppose I can just avoid reading them. I’ll check the author name before reading the article.

    Eric, your articles — Hillary’s chances in 2016 and Ralph Nader spoiling Gore’s 2000 chances — divert discussion from policy back to mainstream party politics. The MSM is full of this. Why spend your time and ours on this?

    In retrospect, I do like Gore, for some reasons. But, the Clinton administration (Brand-D) of which he was a part:
    – Signed NAFTA
    – Placed China on permanent MFN status
    – Signed the CFMA
    – Eliminated taxes on the first $250k of housing gains
    – Signed the elimination of the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall
    and thereby put us on track for the global financial crisis.
    And God only knows what foreign policy crimes Brand-D committed until the stench of Dubya’s colossal bullshit made me grimace enough to start paying attention.

    During their next turn at the helm, Brand-D’s promises have proven so hollow since 2007 (after they won the house) that any time we spend discussing them is a waste.

    Most importantly, it’s not just a waste. It’s counterproductive, because of the opportunity cost: Any time readers spend on “Hillary’s chances in 2016” is time not spent learning about policies or — if we absolutely must talk about candidates — candidates from new parties that don’t promote the same corrupt policies as Brand-D.

    Sorry, I know it’s hard work to gather so many of the facts you gathered. But, if this is what you want to write about, I’m not interested. And I don’t think you’re helping the situation. (Hey, not like I am either. I know this…)

    But, WB, if you’d like to continue cross-posting Eric’s articles — if it helps you increase readership — well, that’s your call. I’ll continue reading.

    • wunsacon

      Eric Zuesse,

      I must apologize to you for writing so negatively about your work in my old comment above. Sorry.

      For long enough now that I can’t remember when I changed my mind, I eagerly read your work. So, when I accidentally rediscovered this 2-yo article and my comment, I was surprised to read what I wrote back then!

      WashingtonsBlog, you made the correct decision to ignore my and fellow readers’ responses. I think Eric’s writing adds value, in coalescing facts and theories I often wouldn’t otherwise consider.

  • Vic

    Distraction because it pushes the left-right debate when there is really no difference from the left and right.

  • mmckinl

    Zuess is a distraction. The worst of it is that he uses words and terms completely out of context. How can one debate when the other places no importance on the accuracy of the very definitions and terms used to stage the debate … ?

  • Desertmer

    I really like his posts whether or not I agree with him. Thoughtful and well written. Never be afraid of rational people giving you their point of view.

  • Interesting Coincidence

    His articles are ok when he’s not red-baiting.

  • Discipleof Jesus

    Eric Zuess is another liar .

    Remember how the Holy Bible came to be through all those innocent people doing nothing but speaking , being put to death for nothing else but believing in someone higher than them .

    There is a saying a man who judgeth a matter before he heareth it is a folly and shame unto him

    To Eric Zuesse , You lie about the bible , you lie about Jesus Christ . The word “jewish” is a modern term .

    Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

    Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

    Dan 11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

    – Speaks of the 1st century apostles

    In the description on amazon you lie and say this “majority of this new Jewish sect’s members; he convinced these people that Jesus had been a god ”

    The Hebrew apostle John contradicts your lies here

    Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    here also
    Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    These scriptures prove that Jesus Christ was the part of the Divine Eternal Father that He wanted to share with us .

    Here is what Jesus Christ said
    Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    Here again is what the hebrew apostle John said

    1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

    1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

    1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

    1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

    1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

    1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

    1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

    1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    You dear sir want to lead people astray from the Faith of Jesus Christ , therefore you are anti-Christ

    You fail to realize that most of the judahites of the 1st century clung unto the ceremonies of the Old Covenant law which were to be done away with in Jesus Christ

    Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

    Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

    Isa 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

    Isa 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

    Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

    You see ANYONE who thinks he or she can work for salvation is either lying to himself or lying to others .

    So I ask you commenters if this man who wrote this article will lie in an actual published book what else will he lie about ?

    If you fail to realize the simple truth that Jesus Christ was the Father manifested in the flesh you are LOST

    Jesus Christ said this

    Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

    Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.