Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

What Became of Conservatives?

Politics-American Conservatives Neo-cons

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#21 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 07:54 PM

^ Never does. ;)
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#22 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 10:09 PM

Quote

Waterpanther sez:
Actually, that's how ol' Pat would've reacted if someone had said Gibsons' Passion was the most disturbing homoerotic snuff film ever and St. Mel had on a bad, bad case of projection . . ..

******** Ouch! :)  Yep, I think veins would actually blow out of Pat's neck if he heard that one.  Which means somebody should tell him immediately...    South Park's take on Mel & The Passion was one of the harshest eps yet (aside from what they did to Paris Hilton, which actually made me feel sorry for her).   I still like Mel okay.  I think he's a bit nuts, but, eh,  'sahright.  But, I'd love to see what his reaction to that South Park ep was...

Quote

G1223 sez:
But Milord it's so much easier and what liberals do best. After all All Republicans support banning Abortion as a choice. They favor The Death Penalty. The want to make America a White Christian only nation. Or at least that is what they want to see.

******** Um... I take it you didn't read my reply in this thread.   And I can't really blame you for that, 'cuz damn am I long-winded.  But, anyway,  I'm a "liberal" (actually I'm a moderate, but people don't seem to be allowed to call themselves those anymore, and since I think Bush is the Worst President Ever, I can't call myself a "conservative" anymore, despite having a lot of conservative beliefs), and I was making an effort there to NOT lump all Republicans in the same group... especially with Ogami.   Don't I get a cookie for that?  :)   You do realize that, while claiming "that's what liberals do best," you are guilty of the same lumping-together that you're protesting against, right?   They do this, they do that.   As I'll explain further down, you've erred there just a bit...

Quote

After all it's easier to do that than find common ground with people.

********* This is exactly the reason why I have an issue with Ogami.  I'd like to try to find common ground with people, but he goes out of his way to create adversarial forum environments where that's not possible.  I know he's the catalyst, too, 'cuz I was on a forum where he got kicked off... and after he was, I found out I actually liked one of the conservatives I'd been fighting against.  Go figure.

Quote

I support choice for women over the age of 17. Becasue there are laws on the books that place a child's well being as being with the parents responsibility. Unless the parent is proven to be uncaring or wreakless with the child's safety.

******** I agree with you, assuming that an incestuous parent would fall into the "uncaring and reckless" category.  No girl should have to bear her own father's child because she's been molested.   Anyway, I'm in favor of abortion, but I think it should be rare.  I'm not in favor of it as someone's primary means of birth control.  If they've been responsible, and somehow got pregnant anyway, then they should have that option.

Quote

But I support the Death Penalty as I want the state to put to death someone who is too dangerous to ever consider getting loose.

********** I also agree here.   Not only do I support the death penalty, I'm for expanding it to include child molesters, rapists, and people who wantonly abuse animals for "fun."  These people are wasting food and oxygen and doing no one any good, so I see no value in keeping them around.

Quote

As to God I will leave it with him to decide what to do with people.

*********** I don't believe in god.  I know there isn't one... but, if there is, I challenge the mofo to a duel.

Quote

I favor the war as I have suspected for a long while that Saddam was providing bases and moneis to terrorists. I suspect that Syria and Suadia Arabia likewise are doing the same. But Saddam is the weakest of the dictators so taking him out has been nessicary and should have been done when he started to play his little game with the inspectors.

******** I don't favor the war because I think Saddam was a paper tiger, and, since he was one of the only secular-type leaders in the Middle East, it makes no sense for him to be a supporter of terrorism.  Islamic terrorism would be a huge threat to his power, and could cause an uprising - that's why he kept it out of Iraq whenever possible, and that's why Bin Laden had a contract on him.   So, I think the war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes in American history, not so much for moral reasons as for tactical ones.  This was a huge mistake, because it removed focus from the real enemy, cost us a crippling ammount in terms of money, manpower, and integrity and sympathy in the world community,  and created instability in one of the few places in the Middle East that was relatively stable.   Now we can't deal with more serious threats because our military is spread too thin (and our enemies know it, which is why they're beefing up their nuke arsenals), and our leadership looks inept.  Iraq is a debacle in my opinion.  But, if you think differently, that's cool, that's how it goes.

Quote

But it's ok to lump us in the same group.

********* No it's not, and that's why I've been making an effort not to do so.


Quote

And last, and certainly least, Ogami says:
It's an insulting and vicious article, attacking Christians and Jews equally, and attacking anyone who dares support the President in this war on terror.

That's all the left has, insults and hate. You make debate easy.

********* If debate is so easy, try some of it.   You may not like the article (it is overly-generalizing, I grant you) but you'll have to do a better job of supporting your claims that it "attacks" Christians and Jews.   Let's examine what's actually said in the article, rather than your particular "desperate to find something to be insulted by in this" take on it.

The article (written by a conservative, by the way, just in case you're ignoring Waterpanther the way you're trying to look like you're ignoring me... which I wouldn't advise if I were you.  Remember what happened to Kerry when he waited too long to respond to the Swift Boat ads?) mentions Christians or Jews in the following lines:

Quote

Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven.

This is a fact.  As I've said, I sit next to one of them, and she's one of many.  Now, you can infer that the author means this as a negative thing, but that's your inference - he never says, "What a bunch of dummies."   You would probably be right to infer that, BUT it hardly constitutes a vicious attack or an insult.  It's simply a statement, and it happens to be true.  

Quote

It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.

He says "even Christians," as if he expects that they, of all people, would know better.  It implies that he holds them to a higher standard.  Again, it may not be flattering, but it's hardly an attack, let alone a vicious one.

Quote

Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isn’t this on a par with the Children’s Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?

I'm reaching here in listing this as a statement about Christians, but, since it mentioned a crusade and I'm trying to be thorough, here it is.  Would you like to try to defend the Children's Crusade?   Even the church now admits that was a really bad thing.

Now, here's what you consider to be a mention of the Jews:

Quote

The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.

Again, I explained that the people are not synonymous with their nation.   It is not anti-Semitic to be against the expansion of Israel.  There are plenty of Jews who are against it themselves.   It's hardly an attack on Jews.

Did I miss any mention of Jews or Christians?   I don't think so, but please correct me if I did.  

Look over it again.   You don't have very much of a case, do you?  Admit it.   You didn't like the article because it's critical of conservatives... and let me correct that, it's critical of neo-conservatives, since it's clear in its explanation of what conservatives used to believe, and the highly-contrasting things the people who call themselves conservative now believe.   So, it ticked you off.  Some of it is overly-generalizing, and some is right on the money.  And I'm betting that's the part that sticks in your craw.   The truth hurts.

By the way, I noticed something hilarious in re-reading the article that I didn't catch the first time.   The article said:

Quote

There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.

American liberals called the Brownshirts "conservative," because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction.

and your enraged reply was:

Quote

I'll ignore the obvious tie-in that this goof is making with Nazis/conservatives, and go right to his point. If you think Bush is a man of "no known distinction", then how is it that Bush was smarter than every one of you liberals put together? He WHIPPED your ass, repeatedly. Not bad for a perceived dummy.

This is a really good example of your poor reading comprehension.  Note that Roberts said  that it's an ERROR to label the 1930's Brownshirts as conservatives.  Therefore, he's making a distinction between conservatives and Brownshirts, not a tie-in between them.  Also, you went off on a rant about Bush not being a man of "no known distinction."   Well, read it again - he's NOT talking about Bush.   He's talking about Hitler.  And, as bad as I hate Bush, I seem to be able to tell the difference between the two men better than you do.

This is the part of the post where I get insufferably smug and just plain hard-to-live-with.

:p

Meanwhile, your post was full of hateful insults, such as claims that liberals "delighted" in Abu Grahib and other such jaw-droppingly inflammatory bullcrud, and then you declare that "debate is easy."

Yep.   But apparently not for you...

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#23 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 10:56 PM

Zwolf666, on Jan 8 2005, 07:09 PM, said:

******** Um... I take it you didn't read my reply in this thread.   And I can't really blame you for that, 'cuz damn am I long-winded.  But, anyway,  I'm a "liberal" (actually I'm a moderate, but people don't seem to be allowed to call themselves those anymore, and since I think Bush is the Worst President Ever, I can't call myself a "conservative" anymore, despite having a lot of conservative beliefs), and I was making an effort there to NOT lump all Republicans in the same group... especially with Ogami.   Don't I get a cookie for that?  :)

Rhea hands Zwolf a platter of chocolate chip cookies. :p :p :p
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#24 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 11:01 PM

A number of people seem to have missed the fact that Roberts' article was not only about the divided state of conservatisim today, but by a conservative.  So just for dessert, here's another piece, by another libertarian-conservative, making the point that old-fashioned  conservatives and liberals do in fact share common ground and need to make common cause.  


Quote

The Reality of Red-State Fascism
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
.

         

Year's end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.

This huge shift has not been noticed among mainstream punditry, and hence there have been few attempts to explain it – much less have libertarians thought much about what it implies. My own take is this: the Republican takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian movement into a statist one.

The remaining ideological justification was left to, and accomplished by, Washington's kept think tanks, who have approved the turn at every crucial step. What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a clear separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward.

Let us start from 1994 and work forward. In a stunningly prescient memo, Murray N. Rothbard described the 1994 revolution against the Democrats as follows:

a massive and unprecedented public repudiation of President Clinton, his person, his personnel, his ideologies and programs, and all of his works; plus a repudiation of Clinton's Democrat Party; and, most fundamentally, a rejection of the designs, current and proposed, of the Leviathan he heads…. what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating, regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, its arrogant ambition to control the entire society from the political center. Voters and taxpayers are no longer persuaded of a supposed rationale for American-style central planning…. On the positive side, the public is vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize government; to increase individual and community liberty; to reduce taxes, mandates, and government intrusion; to return to the cultural and social mores of pre-1960s America, and perhaps much earlier than that.

This memo also cautioned against unrelieved optimism, because, Rothbard said, two errors rear their head in most every revolution. First, the reformers do not move fast enough; instead they often experience a crisis of faith and become overwhelmed by demands that they govern "responsibly" rather than tear down the established order. Second, the reformers leave too much in place that can be used by their successors to rebuild the state they worked so hard to dismantle. This permits gains to be reversed as soon as another party takes control.

Rothbard urged dramatic cuts in spending, taxing, and regulation, and not just in the domestic area but also in the military and in foreign policy. He saw that this was crucial to any small-government program. He also urged a dismantling of the federal judiciary on grounds that it represents a clear and present danger to American liberty. He urged the young radicals who were just elected to reject gimmicks like the balanced-budget amendment and the line-item veto, in favor of genuine change. None of this happened of course. In fact, the Republican leadership and pundit class began to warn against "kamikaze missions" and speak not of bringing liberty, but rather of governing better than others.

Foreshadowing what was to come, Rothbard pointed out: "Unfortunately, the conservative public is all too often taken in by mere rhetoric and fails to weigh the actual deeds of their political icons. So the danger is that Gingrich will succeed not only in betraying, but in conning the revolutionary public into thinking that they have already won and can shut up shop and go home." The only way to prevent this, he wrote, was to educate the public, businessmen, students, academics, journalists, and politicians about the true nature of what is going on, and about the vicious nature of the bi-partisan ruling elites.

The 1994 revolution failed of course, in part because the anti-government opposition was intimidated into silence by the Oklahoma City bombing of April 1995. The establishment somehow managed to pin the violent act of an ex-military man on the right-wing libertarianism of the American bourgeoisie. It was said by every important public official at that time that to be anti-government was to give aid and support to militias, secessionists, and other domestic terrorists. It was a classic intimidation campaign but, combined with a GOP leadership that never had any intention to change DC, it worked to shut down the opposition.

In the last years of the 1990s, the GOP-voting middle class refocused its anger away from government and leviathan and toward the person of Bill Clinton. It was said that he represented some kind of unique moral evil despoiling the White House. That ridiculous Monica scandal culminated in a pathetic and pretentious campaign to impeach Clinton. Impeaching presidents is a great idea, but impeaching them for fibbing about personal peccadilloes is probably the least justifiable ground. It's almost as if that entire campaign was designed to discredit the great institution of impeachment.

In any case, this event crystallized the partisanship of the bourgeoisie, driving home the message that the real problem was Clinton and not government; the immorality of the chief executive, not his power; the libertinism of the left-liberals and not their views toward government. The much heralded "leave us alone" coalition had been thoroughly transformed in a pure anti-Clinton movement. The right in this country began to define itself not as pro-freedom, as it had in 1994, but simply as anti-leftist, as it does today.

There are many good reasons to be anti-leftist, but let us revisit what Mises said in 1956 concerning the anti-socialists of his day. He pointed out that many of these people had a purely negative agenda, to crush the leftists and their bohemian ways and their intellectual pretension. He warned that this is not a program for freedom. It was a program of hatred that can only degenerate into statism.

The moral corruption, the licentiousness and the intellectual sterility of a class of lewd would-be authors and artists is the ransom mankind must pay lest the creative pioneers be prevented from accomplishing their work. Freedom must be granted to all, even to base people, lest the few who can use it for the benefit of mankind be hindered. The license which the shabby characters of the quartier Latin enjoyed was one of the conditions that made possible the ascendance of a few great writers, painters and sculptors. The first thing a genius needs is to breathe free air.

He goes on to urge that anti-leftists work to educate themselves about economics, so that they can have a positive agenda to displace their purely negative one. A positive agenda of liberty is the only way we might have been spared the blizzard of government controls that were fastened on this country after Bush used the events of 9-11 to increase central planning, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and otherwise bring a form of statism to America that makes Clinton look laissez-faire by comparison. The Bush administration has not only faced no resistance from the bourgeoisie. it has received cheers. And they are not only cheering Bush's reelection; they have embraced tyrannical control of society as a means toward accomplishing their anti-leftist ends.

After September 11, even those whose ostensible purpose in life is to advocate less government changed their minds. Even after it was clear that 9-11 would be used as the biggest pretense for the expansion of government since the stock market crash of 1929, the Cato Institute said that libertarianism had to change its entire focus: "Libertarians usually enter public debates to call for restrictions on government activity. In the wake of September 11, we have all been reminded of the real purpose of government: to protect our life, liberty, and property from violence. This would be a good time for the federal government to do its job with vigor and determination."

The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hated of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power.

Editor & Publisher, for example, posted a small note the other day about a column written by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, in which he mildly suggested that the troops be brought home from Iraq "sooner rather than later." The editor of E&P was just blown away by the letters that poured in, filled with venom and hate and calling for Neuharth to be tried and locked away as a traitor. The letters compared him with pro-Hitler journalists, and suggested that he was objectively pro-terrorist, choosing to support the Muslim jihad over the US military. Other letters called for Neuharth to get the death penalty for daring to take issue with the Christian leaders of this great Christian nation.

I'm actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth – not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.

Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act, egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act. It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous community of native-born patriots.

In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences. In 1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith; today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that their faith will have an impact on the country and the world.

Paul Craig Roberts is right: "In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush." Again: "Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy."

In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism. Why fascist? Because it is not leftist in the sense of egalitarian or redistributionist. It has no real beef with business. It doesn't sympathize with the downtrodden, labor, or the poor. It is for all the core institutions of bourgeois life in America: family, faith, and flag. But it sees the state as the central organizing principle of society, views public institutions as the most essential means by which all these institutions are protected and advanced, and adores the head of state as a godlike figure who knows better than anyone else what the country and world's needs, and has a special connection to the Creator that permits him to discern the best means to bring it about.

The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while adopting an ideology – even without knowing it or being entirely conscious of the change – that is also frighteningly anti-liberty. This reality turns out to be very difficult for libertarians to understand or accept. For a long time, we've tended to see the primary threat to liberty as coming from the left, from the socialists who sought to control the economy from the center. But we must also remember that the sweep of history shows that there are two main dangers to liberty, one that comes from the left and the other that comes from the right. Europe and Latin America have long faced the latter threat, but its reality is only now hitting us fully.

What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left. If anything, the left has been solid on civil liberties and has been crucial in drawing attention to the lies and abuses of the Bush administration. No, today, the clear and present danger to freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on the world.

There is no need to advance the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, it is time to recognize that the left today does represent a counterweight to the right, just as it did in the 1950s when the right began to adopt anti-communist militarism as its credo. In a time when the term patriotism means supporting the nation's wars and statism, a libertarian patriotism has more in common with that advanced by The Nation magazine:

The other company of patriots does not march to military time. It prefers the gentle strains of 'America the Beautiful' to the strident cadences of 'Hail to the Chief' and 'The Stars and Stripes Forever.' This patriotism is rooted in the love of one's own land and people, love too of the best ideals of one's own culture and tradition. This company of patriots finds no glory in puffing their country up by pulling others' down. This patriotism is profoundly municipal, even domestic. Its pleasures are quiet, its services steady and unpretentious. This patriotism too has deep roots and long continuity in our history.

Ten years ago, these were "right wing" sentiments; today the right regards them as treasonous. What should this teach us? It shows that those who saw the interests of liberty as being well served by the politicized proxies of free enterprise alone, family alone, Christianity alone, law and order alone, were profoundly mistaken. There is no proxy for liberty, no cause that serves as a viable substitute, and no movement by any name whose success can yield freedom in our time other than the movement of freedom itself. We need to embrace liberty and liberty only, and not be fooled by groups or parties or movements that only desire a temporary liberty to advance their pet interests.

As Rothbard said in 1965:

The doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths.

There has never in my lifetime been a more urgent need for the party of liberty to completely secede from conventional thought and established institutions, especially those associated with all aspects of government, and undertake radical intellectual action on behalf of a third way that rejects the socialism of the left and the fascism of the right.

Indeed, the current times can be seen as a training period for all true friends of liberty. We need to learn to recognize the many different guises in which tyranny appears. Power is protean because it must suppress that impulse toward liberty that exists in the hearts of all people. The impulse is there, tacitly waiting for the consciousness to dawn. When it does, power doesn’t stand a chance.

December 31, 2004

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html
Posted Image

#25 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 11:02 PM

Rhea, on Jan 7 2005, 07:52 PM, said:

waterpanther, on Jan 7 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isn’t this on a par with the Children’s Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?

Oooh, excellent analogy. And like those crusaders, we're getting our asses kicked (which is what happens when you go off half-cocked without a clue about the people you're invading or what it might take to sustain such an endeavor).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Ayup.
Posted Image

#26 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 11:18 PM

But I am conservative in my outlook. Bush like Clinton are not the worse presidents we have had. I have more serious complaints about LBJ that I do Bush or Clinton.  I have more issues of the 40yr+ reign of power by the Democratic Party over congress.(1952 to 1994).


Basically I am a prochoice Republican.  I have seen some from my party who are not that. But they are a shrinking minority. The realty is pro-choice is what works for the majority of americans.

The major reasons the Democratic party really in my opinion lost is a lack of issues. They appear so unconnected to the local issues of their voters. The gay marriage bans that were voted into effect has wide appeal beyond that of political parties.

That is not to say that politics did not play a part in it but voters form both parties had to make this happen. And they did.

A sidenote. I do not favor gay marriage being forced by court order. I would prefer a system where the people are allowed to become comfortable with the idea rather than have it pushed shovelful by shovelful down their throats.  

Personally I do not care I am straight and the issue has little impact upon me. I just do not like courts making ruling as social engineers and want them to have a strong foundation for their rulings.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#27 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 11:36 PM

D'Monix, on Jan 8 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

......the reason for it's posting on the forums is not so much aimed at fostering debate or discussion as it is aimed at baiting...........igniting YET another round of mudslinging in the OT forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ayup.

(Lil, I was expecting a bunny)
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#28 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 11:37 PM

Quote

A sidenote. I do not favor gay marriage being forced by court order. I would prefer a system where the people are allowed to become comfortable with the idea rather than have it pushed shovelful by shovelful down their throats.

So, G1223, satisfy my curiosity here:

How long do you think African-Americans should have had to wait for Southern racists--and Northern ones, too, for that matter-- to become comfortable with the idea of integration?    

How long do you think that would have taken if the courts had stood aside?

How long to you think GLBT Americans should have to wait for the full benefits of citizenship?  

Why does the "discomfort" of bigots rate higher with you than the discomfort of people who must deal with discrimination on a regular basis?

Quote

I just do not like courts making ruling as social engineers and want them to have a strong foundation for their rulings.

They do have a strong foundation.  It's called the Constitution, specifically the equal protection clause.
Posted Image

#29 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 12:31 AM

Quote

I would prefer a system where the people are allowed to become comfortable with the idea rather than have it pushed shovelful by shovelful down their throats.

To take this further then, reverse the concept.  If many anti-gay marriage citizens don't want the courts to tell them how to feel, then why should pro gay marriage citizens want the Constitution, the President and the rest of the government to tell them how to feel and what is right?

It's a nasty double-edged sword, and IMO, it was used in this election to really get the Christian right out to vote for Bush.  The government should stop playing with the nation's love life and start caring for every man and woman who has a right to be in this country.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#30 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 01:05 AM

Takes mod hat off, especially since I no longer mod this forum

D' writes:

Quote

It would seem to me that this article was written as inflamatory in the first place, and the reason for it's posting on the forums is not so much aimed at fostering debate or discussion as it is aimed at baiting certain parties to respond, thus igniting YET another round of mudslinging in the OT forum.

And the bait was swallowed: hook, line, and sinker.

No good can come of this...

What D' said

When you know something is going to get a inevetable reaction out of a specific person or persons the term is Baiting.

And when one responds to the baiting...sigh....

When you take a sweeping generalization ( as bad as sweeping generalizations can be ) and see it as a personal attack, I'd say that one might want to take a step back, take a deep breath and count to ten.

Edited by Shalamar, 09 January 2005 - 01:07 AM.

The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#31 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 01:51 AM

Mr.Calgary, on Jan 8 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

D'Monix, on Jan 8 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

......the reason for it's posting on the forums is not so much aimed at fostering debate or discussion as it is aimed at baiting...........igniting YET another round of mudslinging in the OT forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ayup.

(Lil, I was expecting a bunny)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



:p~

I don't think the article is inflammatory in and of itself.  Nor do I think there's a scintilla of evidence to support the contentions regarding the alleged "motive" for its posting.  If a person disagrees with the article, that is certainly their choice and right.  However, it is precisely *when* persons begin discussing the motive of either the article's or this thread's author that the discussion has veered away from the arena of debate and into the lower plain of mudslinging.  If the *only* way a person can come up with to disagree with something is to get personal or purport to know the motive of the person they're disagreeing with then I suggest that the person might want to do a little examination of their own motives before casting aspersions upon the motives of others.

Lest anyone think I'm not including myself in the group of people who've been guilty of getting personal as a response to something with which I disagree, I know very well that I have done exactly that.  But let us call spades spades.  None of us, and I do mean NONE of us, can know with absolute certainty what motivates another person.  More to the point, NONE of us has a damn bit of control over anything on this board except ones' own responses.

Lil
Posted Image

#32 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 03:06 AM

waterpanther, on Jan 9 2005, 04:37 AM, said:

Quote

A sidenote. I do not favor gay marriage being forced by court order. I would prefer a system where the people are allowed to become comfortable with the idea rather than have it pushed shovelful by shovelful down their throats.

So, G1223, satisfy my curiosity here:

How long do you think African-Americans should have had to wait for Southern racists--and Northern ones, too, for that matter-- to become comfortable with the idea of integration?    

How long do you think that would have taken if the courts had stood aside?

How long to you think GLBT Americans should have to wait for the full benefits of citizenship?  

Why does the "discomfort" of bigots rate higher with you than the discomfort of people who must deal with discrimination on a regular basis?

Quote

I just do not like courts making ruling as social engineers and want them to have a strong foundation for their rulings.

They do have a strong foundation.  It's called the Constitution, specifically the equal protection clause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Maybe becasue those bigots represent a larger percentage of people. who if they can become comfortable with an idea they might just stop attacking the people. Remember the rules of a mob. they are as smart as dumbest person. Therefore working so that they can become a smaller group is always for the best.

The courts when they play social engineers usally make a mess that after decades finally resolves in the two groups still being seperate and still not equal.  Or did you think inner city schools gave just as good an education as schools in the suburbs?


And No Lil I will agree you have not been making personal attacks in any threads of recent record. I cannot remember the last date but your attack came either in self defense or in defense of another.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#33 D'Monix

D'Monix
  • Islander
  • 4,060 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 04:01 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

I don't think the article is inflammatory in and of itself.  Nor do I think there's a scintilla of evidence to support the contentions regarding the alleged "motive" for its posting.  If a person disagrees with the article, that is certainly their choice and right.  However, it is precisely *when* persons begin discussing the motive of either the article's or this thread's author that the discussion has veered away from the arena of debate and into the lower plain of mudslinging.  If the *only* way a person can come up with to disagree with something is to get personal or purport to know the motive of the person they're disagreeing with then I suggest that the person might want to do a little examination of their own motives before casting aspersions upon the motives of others.
right]

Hmmm, maybe the part was missed where I said "It would seem to me." which means that, like always, I call it exactly like I see it.  Maybe this somehow  gives me an ulterior motive when making this observation.  Your response seems to indicate that it does.

But Lord knows I can't think of what motives they would be considering i've stood neutral in this whole Right versus Left bruhaha for months now.

For that matter i've held the same thoughts when articles were posted to this board that would seem to me to be engineering to inflame the more Left-Minded posters on the board.

#34 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 04:17 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2005, 01:51 AM, said:

Lest anyone think I'm not including myself in the group of people who've been guilty of getting personal as a response to something with which I disagree, I know very well that I have done exactly that.  But let us call spades spades.  None of us, and I do mean NONE of us, can know with absolute certainty what motivates another person.  More to the point, NONE of us has a damn bit of control over anything on this board except ones' own responses.

Lil
What Lil said. There have been just as many extreme opinions about the left posted on this forum so there's no reason to single this one out.

But I have a problem with the subtitle of this discussion.

Waterpanther, I have enjoyed our discussions to date and I don't think that you had any devious reasons for posting such an extreme opinion. I found it interesting to read myself but I like to be informed about what those on both sides of the issue are thinking. Even if they are extreme viewpoints, they are still worth the read.

But to call this particular viewpoint "sane" implies that anything outside this opinion is "insane".  There have been opinions posted from both sides of the fence that see this as an extreme position. So I'm asking you, one poster to another, to please reconsider including the word sane in your subtitle.

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)

#35 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 10:13 AM

Chipper, on Jan 8 2005, 04:33 PM, said:

Quote

That's all the left has, insults and hate. You make debate easy.

Excuse me while I laugh for the rest of my life.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I have no words.  :D HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Was that easy enough debate for you, Ogami?  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me too.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sigh.  

Nonny

Edited by Nonny, 10 January 2005 - 08:21 PM.

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#36 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 11:02 AM

Bouree wrote:

But to call this particular viewpoint "sane" implies that anything outside this opinion is "insane". There have been opinions posted from both sides of the fence that see this as an extreme position. So I'm asking you, one poster to another, to please reconsider including the word sane in your subtitle.

This essay is subtitled as "sane" by poster WaterPanther. This article terms Bush supporters as all being Christian zealots waiting for "The Rapture", as if one could not support our Iraq policy on historical, intellectual, or moral grounds. That is patently silly, and it's relatively easy to dismantle and mock said article on that basis.

When the left can offer something besides hate, and not call their hate "reasoned analysis" as some pretend it to be, then there will be an actual debate on having the Iraq war in this country. No such debate exists yet, because the left has ceded their position to Michael Moore's and Whoopi Goldberg's conspiracy theories. When the left can reconsider their position, as one not supported by the majority of Americans or the majority of Iraqis, then their views can be decently debated. Until then, it's so much Doonesbury and Tom Tomorrow sniping.

-Ogami

#37 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 11:02 AM

Quote

When you take a sweeping generalization ( as bad as sweeping generalizations can be ) and see it as a personal attack, I'd say that one might want to take a step back, take a deep breath and count to ten.

********** Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with that.  

There are some sweeping generalizations in the article... but, the article was posted up here for discussion.  I don't see that as "bait," per se.   Waterpanther didn't say, "You can't disagree with this" - she (or he - I don't have everyone's gender down yet, sorry) put it up here so people could talk about it - what's right, and what's wrong.   Some people have done a very good job at pointing out what's wrong with it, such as Ilphi.   Bouree also raised a valid and reasonable objection.  People discussing the article can clear up some of the author's misconceptions, and therefore be helpful.

Ogami's sweeping generalizations are a different matter.   What he does is akin to walking in front of a crowd and saying, "Black people are lazy!" or "You can't trust white people!"  There's definitely going to be a lot of people in that crowd who are going to get their blood pressure jacked and want a word with that speaker... but the speaker can always say, "Oh, I didn't mean you, so you shouldn't be offended."   It's a nifty trick, but it's bull, and he's been enabled with it for too long now.   It's the same kind of tactic that skinheads use when they want to pick fights.   And I'm going to call it what it is, and I'm going to confront him with it, because I see through what he's doing.   He tries to use this as a way to get around making a "personal attack" while levying the same kind of hateful, baseless accusations.  Like I said, nifty trick, but it doesn't work.

I'm a moderate, but since I didn't vote for Bush and am not likely to vote for another Republican until their party does some reforming, today's climate pigeonholes me as a "leftie."  I'm not crazy about that, but, fine, whatever.  So when Ogami comes in with claims that "the left loves when our soldiers die" or "the left is overjoyed that Abu Grahib made our country look bad" or "the left hates America" or "the left is anti-Semitic" or whatever else... well, sorry, but anybody who thinks I'm gonna sit there and take that doesn't know me very well.   I am a proud, patriotic American.   We're not a perfect country, but we're still the best one this planet has going, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.  The reason I oppose Bush is because I think he's doing great harm to the country I love.  If people want to disagree with my assessment of Bush, that's fine, they're free to do so and I'll listen to what they have to say, and if I've been wrong on a point, I'll admit it.  Disagreement is fine.  I wouldn't come to these forums if I didn't like disagreement.    But I am not, I repeat, not going to let anyone say that my side of the aisle is glad when our troops die, or am happy about Abu Grahib, or am an anti-Semite, or any of that other smack.   I don't deserve that, and I'm not going to let that label stick just to avoid a confrontation.   This is not me overreacting and needing to step back from the computer - it's me standing up for myself, as well as others who share my opinion, because that label doesn't fit them, either.  If it did, I wouldn't be hanging around them.

If someone wants to say, "The left is wrong about these issues" or "the left doesn't understand such-and-such," then, fine.  That's still a sweeping generalization, and I'll argue against it (if I disagree with it - not all criticism is incorrect, and if it's valid, I'll take it), but those are very different things than saying, "The left likes it when our troops die" or "the left is un-American."  Asking me to put up with that is asking far too much, and it ain't gonna happen.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#38 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 11:10 AM

First of all, Paul Craig Roberts is a conservative through and through.  No, he never supported the Iraqi War but neither did other notable conservatives such as Paul Weyrich (and me).  But his support of limited government, "supply side" economics and race-neutral policies is well-known and quite impressive.

To be blunt, those that are questioning his conservative bona fides are doing so out of ignorance.  And yes, I am including many "conservatives" who have posted in this thread.

Second, his article quoted above is actually fairly old.  I believe he wrote it last year just after the election.  Old news.

Third, believe it or not, Robert's is not saying anything in his aforementioned article that conservatives are not saying and discussing amongst themselves.

Conservatism is a multifaceted movement composed of mant disparate and often contradictory parts.  Many conservatives define conservatism primarily in terms of the ethical/cultural issues (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc.), others by monetary and financial issues (e.g. taxations, government funding, etc.), others by the goals and purpose of government ("spreading democracy," racial issues, etc.) and still others in terms of adherence to traditions, etc.  What unites us is our general agreement on the matters of governance and even them there are often great disparates of viewpoints.  (Actually, people usually hold a combination of these beliefs in varying degrees but the basic premise holds true: everyone holds some issues or topics more important than others.)  The "problem" is that few if any of us have defined and articulated an overarching "principle of man" as a framework of our conservatism.

What I mean by that is that even today modern conservatism can best be defined as opposition to the ideas of communism.  Communism is a coherent, all-purpose "principle of man" that does indeed provide a framework for the belief systems and cultural values of its abherents.  All kidding aside, and despite the great evil that I think communism is, I give Marx and Engels credit for formalizing such an extensive system.  Thus, not only do communists believe in statist control of production and redistribution of income, they also support atheism.  In their belief of economic determinism, they support cultural revolution and the devaluation of tradition and, to at least some extent, traditional mores and the spreading of their belief system throughout the world.

Historically, because communism presents such a comprehensive view, "conservatives" could be intensely opposed to part of the communist agenda and find fellow travellers and fellow "conservatives" among those opposed to other facets of the communist agenda.  For example, "Evangelicals" and "Christian conservatives" opposed to the atheistic aspects of communism could find themselves compatriots with "free market" conservatives who could care less about religious and/or cultural issues but were adamantly opposed to the redistributory aspects of communism.

And again, the "problem" was because communism itself presented such a comprehensive (and even internally consistent and logical; if wrong) worldview, those who opposed it and called themselves "conservative" for whatever reason never really had to understand their commonality with "conservatives" of other stripes.  Why should "free market" conservatives support "cultural" conservatives on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, etc.?

Even today, what unites conservatives is more opposition to liberalism than agreement amongst themselves.  And going one step further, the liberal positions opposed by conservatives are almost always vestigies of communist positions to one degree or another.

And please note, I am not calling anyone on this board a communist.  For the record, and despite my intense disagreements with many people here, I don't think anyone here is a "dyed in the wool" communist.

Me personally, just as communism has an set of foundational principles, I believe that "conservatism" can, should and does.  Only time will tell if it is a compelling enough one.

Again, Paul Craig Robert's article is just a public airing of an internal discussion that has been going on within conservative circles for years.  The only difference, if any, is that now that conservatism in its many various (and conflicting) aspects is gaining more of the ascendancy in the United States, these internal discussions and even dissentions are by that very fact becoming more and more public.

And to my fellow conservatives who aere upset by Robert's article above, I can almost garauntee that he will be supporting, contributing to and voting for the next set of "conservative" candidates in 2006 and beyond.

Edited by Yama, 09 January 2005 - 11:29 AM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#39 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 11:17 AM

Ogami, on Jan 9 2005, 04:02 PM, said:

...
No such debate exists yet (among the Left?), because the left has ceded their position to Michael Moore's and Whoopi Goldberg's conspiracy theories. When the left can reconsider their position, as one not supported by the majority of Americans or the majority of Iraqis, then their views can be decently debated. Until then, it's so much Doonesbury and Tom Tomorrow sniping.

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Since I disagree with Ogami about the characterization of Paul Craig Robert's article above, allow me to agree with him here.

I see the debate within "conservatism" about what it stands for -- maybe because I am a "conservative" -- but I don't see any debate among "liberals" about the positions they hold.  Even with last year's election defeats, the aftermath among my more liberal Americans seems not to be what positions they hold but how prominent they should display them.  For example, I always hear more pro-choice speakers at the Republican convention than I hear pro-life speakers at the Democratic one.

Edited by Yama, 09 January 2005 - 11:17 AM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#40 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 11:38 AM

Quote

This essay is subtitled as "sane" by poster WaterPanther. This article terms Bush supporters as all being Christian zealots waiting for "The Rapture", as if one could not support our Iraq policy on historical, intellectual, or moral grounds. That is patently silly, and it's relatively easy to dismantle and mock said article on that basis.

********* Read the article again.  It does NOT say that all Bush supporters are Christian zealots.  It says that SOME are.  This is true.  You have tried to take that one little statement to be the core of the entire article, because it suits your purposes to do so.  This proves nothing except that you aren't able to discuss things rationally.   How can I make this simpler for you?   Let's see... okay, if I say, "There are a lot of people reading Harry Potter books.  Some are learned scholars. Some of them are pre-school children."   This is a fact... but how rational is one of the learned scholars going to look if he reads it and goes, "This is slanderous!   I am not a pre-school child!"    If you want to be taken seriously and stop being a liability to others on your side of the argument, you're going to have to greatly improve your reading comprehension.

Quote

When the left can offer something besides hate, and not call their hate "reasoned analysis" as some pretend it to be, then there will be an actual debate on having the Iraq war in this country. No such debate exists yet, because the left has ceded their position to Michael Moore's and Whoopi Goldberg's conspiracy theories.

*********** Crap.   I have repeatedly posted my reasons for not agreeing with the Iraq war, and none of them have anything to do with Michael Moore or Whoopi Goldberg.   You don't answer my charges, however, because you are not capable of it.   All you have is your bomb-throwing and your smear tactics.


Quote

When the left can reconsider their position, as one not supported by the majority of Americans or the majority of Iraqis, then their views can be decently debated. Until then, it's so much Doonesbury and Tom Tomorrow sniping.

******** At one point in time the vast majority of humans on the planet thought the world was flat.   Guess what?   It ain't.   "Majority" doesn't mean a whole lot.

"Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad.  There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad. ... Sanity is not statistical." - George Orwell

"He who trusts numbers, loses to the few.  Despising his foe, he is blind.  He thinks lies are truth.  He thinks truth lies." - Lone Wolf and Cub

Meanwhile, you go right on complaining about how the "left" is full of hate, while you say the things you say.   Letting the right have such an astounding hypocrite for a spokesman is the best advertising the left could ever have.  

If I were a Republican, I'd cut you loose from my pack so quick it'd make your head spin.   The other Republicans on this board have my sympathies.

Cheers,

Zwolf

Edited by Zwolf666, 09 January 2005 - 11:45 AM.

"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, Conservatives, Neo-cons

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users