"If you don't like it, leave"

[hetron]

I'm sorry, but when I hear this comment it just makes my blood boil. I'm sick and tired of hearing "conservatives" (or whatever the term imbeciles use for themselves for these days) tell "liberals" (the term they use for anyone who doesn't fall lockstep behind the leadership of our Bozo in Chief) to "leave the country" if they don't like it."

This is an absurdity that is almost uniquely American. I have been to Europe many times, and I don't recall ever hearing a Frenchman tell another Frenchman to leave France if he doesn't like a particular policy of the French government. I seriously doubt a Japanese person would ever be told to leave Japan if they didn't like the policies of the Japanese government.

The funny thing is these chumps think of themselves as "real Americans", a term they use to separate themselves from the "foreigners", "college professors" or "welfare mothers", people who either "don't live in the real world" or are "a waste of my tax dollars". I have yet to find out what a "real American is", but I assume these folks think it is directly proportional to how many "Don't mess with the US" bumper stickers they put on their cars.

Normal people and "conservatives" alike need to realize that open dicourse is essential to democracy. If someone is criticizing the government and its policies, chances are that they would like to somehow IMPROVE what the nation is doing, not because they want to see its demise or destruction.

[brad]

the proper response , and theh one i alwayhs use,

is

'ok ok. youre right. lets build the death camps. can we kill more than jews this time? i hate <insert race here> too.'

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"Normal people and "conservatives" alike need to realize that open dicourse is essential to democracy."

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement .... nah forget it. I for one would prefer it if you made stuff like this rhyme at least. Maybe a limmerick would work:


I was confronted by a right winger

And I decided to linger

The right winger did harass

Then called me an ass

It felt like a painful stinger


Happy holidays /images/graemlins/cool.gif.

[dsm]

"I have yet to find out what a "Real American is,"...



"Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass.
It's the American way."

Toby Keith...Real American

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

This is an absurdity that is almost uniquely American.

While I hate the "love it or leave" mentality, this statement is ludicrous. Hyper-nationalism exists everywhere. You mentioned France. There is a huge right-wing nationalist movement in France, but they don't want people to leave who disagree with policy, they want people to leave who aren't ethnically French.

Nationalist movements are rampant in Europe, where the recent influx of immigrants have changed the social nature of the various countries. As for Japan, there may not exist in this world a culture more xenophobic and resistant to outsiders.

Hate to break it to you, but there are a$$holes all over the world.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an absurdity that is almost uniquely American.

While I hate the "love it or leave" mentality, this statement is ludicrous. Hyper-nationalism exists everywhere. You mentioned France. There is a huge right-wing nationalist movement in France, but they don't want people to leave who disagree with policy, they want people to leave who aren't ethnically French.

Nationalist movements are rampant in Europe, where the recent influx of immigrants have changed the social nature of the various countries. As for Japan, there may not exist in this world a culture more xenophobic and resistant to outsiders.

Hate to break it to you, but there are a$$holes all over the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with you that xenophobia is rampant worldwide, all the examples you gave dealt with immigration. I am talking ideology. People who espouse the "if you don't like it, you can leave" mantra don't point it just at newly arrived ethnic minorities, they point at "liberals", "activists", and "lefties", whether there families have been in america for 1 year or 400 years.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

True, but that more reflects the the US is a nation based on a governmental concept as opposed to an ethnicity.

In other words, since the US is a nation of immigrants, our shared national identity is more one of a governmental concept, rather than an ethnic one. The people are accusing others of not being true to what they define as our core being.

You also have to understand that there is a much wider spectrum of political debate in europe than here in the US. Even from my perspective, the Democrats and Republicans look more like different wings of the same political party than two distinct entities.


Also, in WWII and WWI, dissent was treated much more harshly than now. In WWI, people who protested the war were deported, and in WWII, they were regularly jailed.

[Dr Wogga]

.....stop crying, I'm warming you a bottle as I write this. If you spend so much time in france and like it, why don't you stay there. You could tell all the french america-haters you're with them - and other than getting spit on from time to time, you'd probably like it there a lot better. Waaaaaa, waaaaaa

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
.....stop crying, I'm warming you a bottle as I write this. If you spend so much time in france and like it, why don't you stay there. You could tell all the french america-haters you're with them - and other than getting spit on from time to time, you'd probably like it there a lot better. Waaaaaa, waaaaaa

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not interested in living in France. I was thinking I could ship your ass there so that you might be able to get a different perspective on things. You can get schooled on different political views, find out why they feel the way they do. Who knows? You might actually come back less ignorant.

Actually that sounds like a great idea. Why not just ship Wogga, Limbaugh, and Hannity over to France (or any other foreign country for that matter) and let them see different countries, different political and social systems, different aspects of life in general. Who knows, they might actually come back less ignorant.

[hetron]

Brad,

As usual, you are either thinking three steps ahead of me, or three steps behind me. I just can't figure out which.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
True, but that more reflects the the US is a nation based on a governmental concept as opposed to an ethnicity.

In other words, since the US is a nation of immigrants, our shared national identity is more one of a governmental concept, rather than an ethnic one. The people are accusing others of not being true to what they define as our core being.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the concept behind the US being a governmental one. I think it is more along the lines of thinking that it is a great meritocracy- in other words, those who work hard and are willing to sublimate completely into Americana will achieve "the American dream", so to speak. If you are perceived as unwilling to work hard for your piece of the pie, or not willing to sublimate to the extent that certain folks want you to, you are viewed as "un-American".

I obviously don't have a problem with people working hard or trying to fit in with American culture. But the hypersensitivity to anyone who even APPEARS to not fall into line with the mainstream political thinking of the times (look no further than Dr. Wogga's posts if you need proof of what I am saying) is something that is difficult to find in too many other cultures worldwide, whether they be homogenous or heterogenous.

[MMMMMM]

"You also have to understand that there is a much wider spectrum of political debate in europe than here in the US. Even from my perspective, the Democrats and Republicans look more like different wings of the same political party than two distinct entities."

Quite right, and it seems the Europeans are on average a lot slower to learn the lessons of history than are the Americans. For instance, many in European countries still believe in Communism (naturally, primarily in those countries which never experienced it;-) I mean come on how willfully stupid can these present-day European Communists be. And I do say willfully because I think it takes a special effort to believe in such things today.

[hetron]

A real American is a musician named Keith. Here goes:

For the 2000 (2000)
Black elvis (black elvis)
We get raw with this (hand me my guitar)
Tour bus packed (tour bus packed)

Black elvis, recordin in the 48-track studio
Madison square garden soundcheck, to speak direct
Fans in the upper level, backstage passes
Wearin diamonds around my glasses, leather coat
Thirty thousand from wilson, countin the mill’s
I’m talkin to andre harrell with a chaffeur drivin me around
In the green rolls royce, parked parallel, on fifth avenue
Steppin in bloomingdale’s, waitin for celine dion to get her nails done
Tour dates start tommorrow, mci send the cash through wells fargo
Black elvis, 28 g’s a night
Tour bus with the motley crue, who gon’ stop who?
Rock star don’t need no tattoo
Guitar out of the sharp, fender bass with the stratocaster
With prodigy, rage against the machine, flyin over the atlantic ocean
With the potion

Chorus: kool keith

Black elvis, rock star, walkin down broadway
What y’all thinkin about?
Black elvis, rock star, walkin down broadway
Chillin in the project hallway

(repeat 1.5x)

[kool keith]
Tour bus, painted neon green with black wheels
We do big wheels, count big head franklin bills
Movin up that’s when I’m black elvis at the civic center
Promoter book venues that are too small, ignore the call
Seventy thousand jam packed arenas
With rock fans wearin backpacks
Merchandise sell nice gold shirts with red lights
Sponsored by dial soap and a heineken
The biggest rock star gon’ rhyme again
Roadie cases for eight months, samsonite suitcases
Rappers comin home with no money on the red eye with dead eyes
Stadium tickets, watch scalpers get wicked
Pull up in my limo ejecting your demo (your demo)
Stretch lamborghinis with four doors, with four floors
Followin right behind yours, basic continental
Get out your rental before I get mental
(yeah baby)

Kool Keith...really (mentally disturbed) American

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I disagree with the concept behind the US being a governmental one. I think it is more along the lines of thinking that it is a great meritocracy

Well, a free country is a meritocracy to a certain extent. But that wasn't my point. I meant defined as a nation by governmental concept as opposed to defined as a nation by ethnicity.

those who work hard and are willing to sublimate completely into Americana will achieve "the American dream", so to speak.

I disgree completely. The US seems to me to be a place where you can "do your own thing" and succeed. I'm not sure I know what "sublimate completely into Americana" means.

Regardless, this country is a pretty damn heterogenous place. Besides, there's little difference in you saying "bozo-in-chief" and your adversary saying "if you don't like it, leave." You're both exercising your right to free speech. What you say offends him, what he says offends you. There is no right to not be offended by other people's opinions.

[Dr Wogga]

.....to bonus whores.com. Brad and i could have fun there, doing manly hetero things to those sluts

[Cyrus]

When a dozen threads ago Utah had disputed that conservatives lie about liberals in America, the first big lie that actually came into my mind was the perennial and blatant conservative lie about liberals being less patriotic than conservatives.

I was about to start a thread in order to demonstrate to dear Utah the inherent problem in that basic conservative position (a.k.a. a lie) but I was too lazy to type up anything more than chicken hawk at the time.

--Cyrus

PS : Those physicals from Dubya's stint in the "American military" came back yet? Just askin'.

[dsm]

....taking a Red, White, & Blue Boot up his Ass
from a "Real" American....President Bush.

God Bless America!!!

[Rushmore]

Actually, you make an ironic point.

If it had not been for many great American "conservatives," who live in the world as IT IS, rather than the way they'd LIKE IT TO BE, we might live in a country where you were NOT, indeed, welcome to leave.

Go figure.

To put it in pop culture terms: "You WANT me on that wall. You NEED me on that wall. And while my existence might seem grotesque to you, I save lives. So grab a weapon and man a post. Otherwise, I'd rather you just said thank you, and went on your way."

Or should we simply dismantle the military, turn a blind eye to the realities of the world and human nature, stick out heads in the sand, and just, uh, "pray?"

[Rushmore]

Very well-said, Kurn.

When defining everything as "good" or "bad," the left-of-center crowd seems to demonize everything to the right of themselves, and objectivity ("good") seems to get lost in the vitriol ("bad").

I'm sure "bozo-in-chief" seems like an erudite and reasonable and objective and sophisticated and rational and, uh, "good" way to approach the situation to some folks.

To me, it is a great bullsh*t detector.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif..love it or leave it!!!

that's the correct phrase...lol..

power to the people..

gl /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Utah]

Good to see that you are still chewing on that crayon.....

I would love to tangle with you now as I do enjoy your wit. But alas, no time for the next couple of days.

Of course, I could not hold back a few comments towards you as you provide such a target rich environment:

1) You still need to go to dictionary.com or some equivalent and look up the word lie. Grand generalizations about conservative ideas are simply not lies. So far, you have provided only 2 examples of potential lies: 1) Aircraft carrier - a minor lie that I agreed with you and in fact had mentioned before you even brought it up and 2) Bush Speech about Uranium - while it might be a lie, and a whopper at that, it is still very much in dispute and you provided none of the backup I requested to prove your point.

the first big lie that actually came into my mind was the perennial and blatant conservative lie about liberals being less patriotic than conservatives

This is clearly an opinion. Please tell me sir, how is this a lie?

2) I personally don't think liberals are less patriotic that Republicans. I don't think it is a liberal or conservative thing. What the heck does patriotic mean anyway?

I certainly don't think people disagreeing with the war, the direction of the country, etc. is unpatriotic (for lack of a better word). Heck, one could consider such actions extremely patriotic as they are trying to shape and better this country. To me, we might disagree greatly on the course we should take, but it is all about bettering the country and moving the ball forward. Under that vein, I have zero problems with those who believe in communism or some other form of government if they truly share the same end goal.

That being said, I do think there is a group out there (the Algers of the world) that has nothing but utter contempt for their country and they would like to see it fail. I think this group secretly likes seeing terrrorists kill U.S. soldiers and they like seeing the U.S. "get its due". These people have no desire to advance U.S. interests and they simply dispise where they live. To those people I would say - "well, it you don't like it hear. Go somewhere else." Common sense to me. If you don't want to help and dont like us, we don't want you (although we will tolerate you) and you obviously don't want us. Why stay?

btw - again, I am not a conservative or a Bush supporter. Closest would probably be libertarian.

[brad]

'Or should we simply dismantle the military, turn a blind eye to the realities of the world and human nature, stick out heads in the sand, and just, uh, "pray?"'


lets remember 911 happened because pc crap and laziness and stupidity. no locking cockpit doors, pilots not armed, cant be suspicious of suspicous looking characters, etc.

and thats the very best interpretation. worst case realistic model (ie it fits the evidence) people wont consider for emotional reasons.

[brad]

'
To those people I would say - "well, it you don't like it hear. Go somewhere else." Common sense to me. If you don't want to help and dont like us, we don't want you (although we will tolerate you) and you obviously don't want us. Why stay?
'

so if parents (who in their area are a minority) dont want their preteen/teen daughters to get on demand secret abortions via school and stuff and all that goes along with that, you think they are wrong to lobby and get 'their' guys on school board and change policy , etc. ? they should just pack up and leave?

to take a line from the jews, where should they (eventually ahve to) go? the moon?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

When defining everything as "good" or "bad," the left-of-center crowd seems to demonize everything to the right of themselves

The right of center tends to do the same thing as well. The left, though, seems to exude more a sense of intellectual superiority, as if looking down their nose at people who express conservative views.

For me, I take solace in the fact that many very conservative people I meet consider me hideously liberal, and many liberals I know consider me to be to the right of Attila the Hun (but to the left of Gerry Callahan*)


* fans of Boston sports radio will get that one.

[andyfox]

Conservatives were against America's involvement in World War II and were against gearing up for fighting the Soviet Union in the Cold War until the liberal Harry Truman forced them into it. There was a very strong streak of isolationism in the mainstream, conservative Republican Party. They were the ones who wanted to bury their heads in the sand and dismantle the military.

[Cyrus]

"I personally don't think liberals are less patriotic that Republicans. I don't think it is a liberal or conservative thing."

I am not referring to you when I claim that conservatives lie, that they lie big and that they lie most of the time. I don't know you personally so I cannot tell. That you jump up at every opportunity to defend the conservatives from my accusation is intriguing, on two fronts: (a) it may indicate from you an unwitting identification with their causes, depite your repeated denials that you have ever inhaled conservative fart, and (b) it robs me of the chance to debate this with an out-out-out proponent of those lies!

"What the heck does patriotic mean anyway?"

I cannnot define what patriotic is but I know it when I see it

"The perennial and blatant conservative lie about liberals being less patriotic than conservatives... : This is clearly an opinion. Please tell me sir, how is this a lie?"

No, it is not an opinion, it is a lie. All kidding aside, one of the primary attributes of patriotism (Greek patris: one's country) is to willingly serve your country. It is therefore dowright insulting and as blatant a lie as they come, when conservatives accuse as "unpatriotic" people who have served their country in uniform and have seen battle, especially when those same conservatives have shirked from that elementary patriotic duty.

The sight of politican chicken hawks accusing as "unpatriotic"liberal politicians, when liberal war veterans in Congress outnumer conservative war veterans, is nauseating. They are using a pure, unadulterated lie for petty politics. They know that this is not so (one man had lost two legs and an arm, for pete's sake, yet his loyalty to America was questioned by his GOP prick of an opponent), and they know that their claim is completely unsupported by facts, yet they consciously mouth off those false claims, in order to gain political brownie points.

--Cyrus

PS : Republican politicians were not always like that. It was a Republican who was among the first to stand up to the lies and smears of Joe McCarthy. People were more honorable back then, and politics was not as disgusting a pit of lying hounds as it's become.

[Cyrus]

You don't think the Bozo-in-Chief is a Bozo?

The record shows that Double You is a silver-spoon-fed, draft-evadin', cocaine-sniffin', drunk drivin', consistently lyin', heartless & gutless politician of below-average intelligence (even as pols go). Maybe bozo is not accurate enough but it's shorthand.

What would you prefer?

[brad]

' politician of below-average intelligence (even as pols go'

funny thing is he was very articulte speaker as gov of texas, from 1st hand accounts. so what hppnd?

[Rushmore]

Isolationism and dismantling the military are somewhat different things, I think.

Truman wasn't a "conservative?" What about Jefferson? Or Franklin? Is there any difference in peoples' minds between "progressive" "liberal" Democrats," and "Old Hard Line" "conservative" "Republicans" within these two subsets.?

It would seem not.

[MMMMMM]

Also, W. scored over 1200 on his SATs (at least I've so read). Could any truly stupid person do that? Cyrus' prior defense of his claim that W. is stupid, as I recall, was based on nothing more than saying that his actions prove he is stupid, and that he has some problem with dyslexia. I said being dyslexic doesn't necessarily imply stupidity but Cyrus disagreed. Well, in high school I knew a genius who happened to be dyslexic, so if W. has a problem with dyslexia that doesn't prove him stupid IMO. All in all I think it rather ironic that Cyrus should be accusing others of lying in this thread;-)

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you make an ironic point.

If it had not been for many great American "conservatives," who live in the world as IT IS, rather than the way they'd LIKE IT TO BE, we might live in a country where you were NOT, indeed, welcome to leave.

Go figure.

To put it in pop culture terms: "You WANT me on that wall. You NEED me on that wall. And while my existence might seem grotesque to you, I save lives. So grab a weapon and man a post. Otherwise, I'd rather you just said thank you, and went on your way."

Or should we simply dismantle the military, turn a blind eye to the realities of the world and human nature, stick out heads in the sand, and just, uh, "pray?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This response is oh-so-typical of the arguments the Limbaugh-Hannity "conservative" crowd like to use. (I have been using quotes around "conservatives" to separate them from the more intellectual right of center types).

This post does not address anything I put in my post. It merely makes the same insinuations that the Limbaugh-Hannity talk show crowd make all the time: The greatness of this country is a result of military tough guys (like Col. Jessop from "A Few Good Men") who live in "the real world", who are too busy handling "real world problems" to listen to what the bleeding heart pansy liberals have to say. The post also insinuates that I would like to see the dismantling of the US military(??) My post was about open public discourse without telling those who disagree that "if you don't like it, leave".

What my post has to do with the dismantling of the US military and "A Few Good Men", I'm not exactly sure.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the concept behind the US being a governmental one. I think it is more along the lines of thinking that it is a great meritocracy

Well, a free country is a meritocracy to a certain extent. But that wasn't my point. I meant defined as a nation by governmental concept as opposed to defined as a nation by ethnicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are trying to say. I won't belabor the point.
[ QUOTE ]

those who work hard and are willing to sublimate completely into Americana will achieve "the American dream", so to speak.

I disgree completely. The US seems to me to be a place where you can "do your own thing" and succeed. I'm not sure I know what "sublimate completely into Americana" means.


[/ QUOTE ]

This has changed over the years. It used to be that people though to make it in America, you had to change your Anglicize your name at Ellis Island, learn English as fast as possible, and try to fit in to mainstream America as much as possible. This paradigm has changed drastically in the last 20-30 years and being able to succeed by "doing your own thing" is probably closer to the reality these days.
[ QUOTE ]

Regardless, this country is a pretty damn heterogenous place. Besides, there's little difference in you saying "bozo-in-chief" and your adversary saying "if you don't like it, leave." You're both exercising your right to free speech. What you say offends him, what he says offends you. There is no right to not be offended by other people's opinions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to deny anyone their first amendment rights. But I think you are dead wrong when comparing someone calling Bush the "bozo-in-chief" to telling someone "to leave if you don't like it". Insulting Dubya isn't the same as implying someone is unpatriotic or un-American.

[hetron]

bonus whore is much more likely to be 53 year old bald guy from Pittsburgh looking for an $100 bonus on Party Poker than any sort of mid 20's platinum blonde (advertising is SOO misleading), I hope the only "manly hetero" things you are going to do with them are drink and play cards.

[hetron]

What gives with your constant references to Alger as being anti-American? There was a previous poster (who shall rename nameless) who liked to accuse people (including myself) of being Al Qaeda and Hamas sympathizers if we didn't agree with Dubya's Middle East strategy. Fortunately, he was a real wack job and no one took him seriously. So while I'm sure Mr. Alger doesn't need a lawyer, I still want to ask, what proof do you have that he wants to see American soldiers killed? 40 years ago Joe McCarthy ruined a lot of people's lives by levelling half-assed accusations at them. I highly doubt your posts will have the same effect, but they are still pretty serious accusations, given the times we live in.

[Dr Wogga]

.....still, it would be great to nail a REAL hoe tyat's not a x-dresser - don't you think

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Insulting Dubya isn't the same as implying someone is unpatriotic or un-American.

It's precisely the same thing. Free speech is free speech is free speech.

[Utah]

I still want to ask, what proof do you have that he wants to see American soldiers killed?

I have no proof, as the wording of my statement clearly indicated. In fact, my statement clearly implies that Alger has said nothing on the sort - hence the word secretly.

However, if you want to get a sense of his negative view towards America and his positive views towards terrorists read his previous posts.

Concerning being a sympathizer, since you brought up the word, Alger is clearly a Palestinian Terrorist (freedom fighter) sympathizer. Again, read all his posts.

So while I'm sure Mr. Alger doesn't need a lawyer
Nope, just a shrink.

[Gamblor]

you have every right to.

But it's the realists who will be prepared.

Without liberals, there'd be no health care, emancipation proclamation, etc. etc.

And those are all good things that have eventually been accepted by the right (the sane ones, anyway). But there's a fine line between progress and incitement, and unfortunately the American (and worldwide) left has crossed it.

[MMMMMM]

"Without liberals, there'd be no health care, emancipation proclamation, etc. etc."

I'm more than a bit curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Yeah. Health care comes from doctors and the EP was authored by a Republican /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

I forget the specifics but I read an article a while ago detailing how most (or even perhaps all) of the filibusters against equal civil rights were by Democrats. Also, George Wallace, a Democrat, physically blockaded the schoolhouse door to try to prevent integration.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

of the filibusters against equal civil rights were by Democrats

Correct, but that was the Dixiecrat wing that left the Democratic Party in the 70's and have found a home in today's GOP (guys like Lott & DeLay for example, would've been Democrats had they been born a few decades earlier).

[MMMMMM]

Thganks for the additional info....the name Helms rings a bell as for the filibusters..

[Rushmore]

Using the movie quote was simply for effect. Forget it.

Ultimately, my point was that had it not been for many great Americans who line up right of center, "leaving it" would not be an option. The fact is, it has always taken folks from both sides to make this country work.

[andyfox]

After WWII, the Republicans wanted to revert to isolationism, bring all the troops home, and slash the miiltary budget. The liberals led the Cold War crusade.

No, Truman was not a conservative.

[Gamblor]

But some of the better programs Democrats have instituted are the ones that support Americans.

People have enough trouble getting their own lives in sync with the way they want them. Then they have to worry about their employers' organizations' success to keep from getting laid off, which is tough enough. Then, they have to worry about the success of their hometown to support the organization, then the success of the state, and finally the Federal goverment's success.

It is completely unreasonable to believe that Democrats are after little more than a free lunch. Whether it's medicine they don't want to pay for, or providing help for those unable to do so for themselves.

Morally, I'm all for Medicare and workfare and aid for whatever. But don't delude yourself into thinking there's a grand altruistic principle behind it all.

[MMMMMM]

Gamblor, you posted this:

""Without liberals, there'd be no health care, emancipation proclamation, etc. etc.""

to which I responded:

"I'm more than a bit curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion."

to which you responded:

"But some of the better programs Democrats have instituted are the ones that support Americans.

People have enough trouble getting their own lives in sync with the way they want them. Then they have to worry about their employers' organizations' success to keep from getting laid off, which is tough enough. Then, they have to worry about the success of their hometown to support the organization, then the success of the state, and finally the Federal goverment's success.

It is completely unreasonable to believe that Democrats are after little more than a free lunch. Whether it's medicine they don't want to pay for, or providing help for those unable to do so for themselves.

Morally, I'm all for Medicare and workfare and aid for whatever. But don't delude yourself into thinking there's a grand altruistic principle behind it all."

Forgive me but I cannot find in your response that which addresses what I was wondering about.

[MMMMMM]

This helps, in a small way, in confirming my previously stated hypothesis that the typical Liberal of today is greatly changed compared to the typical Liberal of yore.

(One of my principal observations as part of this hypothesis, which I've noted before, is that Liberals today are more control-oriented and less concerned with individual rights {Hillary Clinton being a case in point: didn't she say "We must stop being concerned about the individual and start thinking about what's good for society."--or words to that effect?-terrifying if you ask me...and definitely far removed from the essence of Liberalism of yore.})

[Utah]

I thought your comment about our Bozo-in-Chief was a brilliant attempt at open public discourse. If I was a supporter of Bush I am positive that comment would make me think, "Well, there is an obviously intelligent, agile, and mature fella who disagrees with me. Lets start an open dialogue." Job well done.

btw - the biggest mistake that the left can make is to under estimate the intelligence of GW. He might be a liar and he might be uneducated, but he is not stupid.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

he might be uneducated

Yale undergrad, Harvard B-school. I'm curious what you define as "educated."

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Hillary Clinton being a case in point: didn't she say "We must stop being concerned about the individual and start thinking about what's good for society."

I believe this sums up the basic political philosophy coming from both sides of the aisle. They just differ on what's good for "society."

[MMMMMM]

Probably so, but it is especially ironic coming out of the mouths of supposed "liberals."

[andyfox]

Conservatives typically bemoan the fact that liberalism has changed, that it has moved from the foreign policy consensus of the Cold War years, when liberals could be liberal on domestic issues and yet wanted a "strong" foreign policy. Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson is invariably held up as a prime example of this "good" kind of liberal.

Conservatives like 1960s liberals. They don't understand that the world has changed since that time.

[andyfox]

"Forgive me but I cannot find in your response that which addresses what I was wondering about."

Don't you mean, "Forgive me but I cannot find in your response that which addresses that about which I was wondering"?

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought your comment about our Bozo-in-Chief was a brilliant attempt at open public discourse. If I was a supporter of Bush I am positive that comment would make me think, "Well, there is an obviously intelligent, agile, and mature fella who disagrees with me. Lets start an open dialogue." Job well done.

btw - the biggest mistake that the left can make is to under estimate the intelligence of GW. He might be a liar and he might be uneducated, but he is not stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, attacking people's loyalty to country and insulting the president is NOT the same thing. People hated Clinton and called him a "scumbag". This never stopped people from debating Clinton's policies or stands on certain issues (or lack thereof), and I certainly don't recall anyone being called "un-American" for not supporting Bubba.

[Gamblor]

The response was in the title.

As in, "I am..."

[elwoodblues]

Couldn't agree more. Both sides want smaller government; both sides want bigger government.

[MMMMMM]

Obviously the world has changed since that time, but most of Liberal positions of today are, IMO, anything but liberal.

The Liberals appear to be fast donning the mantle of the New Fascists for the supposed Greater Good of Society. There is nothing in human history that has wrought more evil than the pernicious idea that individual rights must be suppressed in cause of the "greater good." That is the core essence of all fascism and communistic totalitarianism in the history of theworld. No idea is more subtly and horribly flawed; no idea is capable of causing more or greater misery, in it's insidiousness. Society must exist to support the ideal of individual rights; not the other way around. If individual rights are held to exist in order to support society, the human race has no future other than drear suffering, overpopulation, and misery, compounded by ill-fated state attempts to bring about a cosmic-type of equality to the human condition when no such equalities exist in nature or in the world. Well-meaning yet foolish idealists are the biggest purchasers of such bankrupt philosophies, and today the Liberals seem to be ever sliding further towards un-reality (just listen to some of Dean's more recent remarks as an example).

The world has changed, it is true, but some things never change. Failure to understand this has led to some of the greatest personal human tragedies, as well as some of the most tragic human miseries, and lack of all rights, on massive scale.

[elwoodblues]

But that was different...he was a democrat.

It was okay to say Clinton was "wagging the dog" when our troups engaged in military action because Clinton was a democrat (it's okay to attack his motives as being all for Politics)

It was okay to block his judicial nominations (as long as filibusters weren't used).

It makes sense to say that the good economy of the Clinton era was all due to Reagan and Bush I, but the economy improving now is all due to Bush II...why? Clinton is a democrat.

[MMMMMM]

Yes...is one not correct?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Again, attacking people's loyalty to country and insulting the president is NOT the same thing.

Again, they are precisely the same thing. Both are an expression of opinion in a deliberately provocative manner.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Insulting Dubya isn't the same as implying someone is unpatriotic or un-American.

It's precisely the same thing. Free speech is free speech is free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. McCarthyism in the 50's proved it is not the same. Accusations or insinuations of disloyalty to country in times of high paranoia (50's "red scare", post 9/11 etc.) are very dangerous. There were many reformers and progressives who chose to keep their mouths shut during
50's just so they didn't have anyone accuse of them being a commie. It became an easy way for McCarthy and his ilk to keep left wing opposition to US foreign policy to a minimum. The accusations of Anti-americanism made in post 9/11 America sound eerily familiar

[andyfox]

One shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. So, for example, your response to me now should not be "Thanks for telling me what your were talking about," but, rather, "Thanks for telling me what you were talking about, [censored]."

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

I don't want to get into either a philosophical or semantic discussion, but I agree with your basic point. However, it is not just the suppression of individual rights that has caused the great tragedies. It is this combined with other factors (such as a weakened society in a state of shock or flux, and a lack of sympathy on the part of the would-be do-gooders with democracy). Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott.] There are some individual rights that are always sacrificed when a society is formed.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

What does McCarthyism (government forcing industrys to blacklist people due to political opinions) have to do with your original post:

I'm sorry, but when I hear this comment it just makes my blood boil. I'm sick and tired of hearing "conservatives" (or whatever the term imbeciles use for themselves for these days) tell "liberals" (the term they use for anyone who doesn't fall lockstep behind the leadership of our Bozo in Chief) to "leave the country" if they don't like it."

Second of all, if there is *any* hint of McCarthyism in this country, it's from the left in academia, where simply being a registered Republican is often reason enough to get a person denied tenure in a university.

Yes, conservatives usually employ this type of chauvinistic bluster to attack and impugn their opponents. Not liberal. No, you guys sneer down your "sophisticated" noses with smug intellectual superiority, using terms like "conservatives" (or whatever the term imbeciles use for themselves for these days) or "bozo-in-chief."

Real intelligent arguments on both sides. You know something? I think the "love-it-or-leave-it" types are morons, too. I also think people whose only way of criticizing an opponent is to denigrate his or her intelligence is a moron, too.

Well, fine. You have the right to your opinion about the President, and the guy who listens to your opinion and calls you unpatriotic, well he has the right to his opinion, too. And me, I also have an opinion.

You're both idiots.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There are some individual rights that are always sacrificed when a society is formed.

Right. And it's the best governments that restrict the extent to which those rights are sacrificed.

I would contend that both sides of the debate want to sacrifice too many of our freedoms. Both are usually wrong.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
simply being a registered Republican is often reason enough to get a person denied tenure in a university

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a new one on me. Is this verifiable or is it akin to the white guy claiming he didn't get a job because of "affirmative action."

----

Your are either fairly witty or terribly self unaware (I'm assuming witty, but really either one made me laugh.)

[ QUOTE ]
I also think people whose only way of criticizing an opponent is to denigrate his or her intelligence is a moron, too.

[/ QUOTE ]
....
[ QUOTE ]
You're both idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

I'm not so sure that the government which governs least governs best. The government which governs best governs best. That government which governs least borders on anarchy.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

the white guy claiming he didn't get a job because of "affirmative action."

Oh, yeah. Like that's never happened.

Your are either fairly witty or terribly self unaware

Like most people, anger dulls my wit and clouds my awareness, especially of what I've just written. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Gamblor]

...who 50+% of you all voted for.

Congratulations, you're stuck with him.

Solid support staff, though.

And the best part? Get ready for another 4 years!

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
What does McCarthyism (government forcing industrys to blacklist people due to political opinions) have to do with your original post:

I'm sorry, but when I hear this comment it just makes my blood boil. I'm sick and tired of hearing "conservatives" (or whatever the term imbeciles use for themselves for these days) tell "liberals" (the term they use for anyone who doesn't fall lockstep behind the leadership of our Bozo in Chief) to "leave the country" if they don't like it."

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all my post was in response to you saying that insulting Dubya ad saying someone was unpatriotic or that they should leave the country if they don't like it is completely different. I'm trying to say that they aren't the same because of the dangerous precedent set by McCarthyism. The right in the US has a nasty history of preying upon paranoia during times of concern against an enemy abroad (in the 50's, the Soviet Union, now, terrorism) and using the questioning of people's patriotism to destroy dissent against mainstream foreign policy. While no one is creating blacklists these days (not that I know of, anyway), it is still (at least to me) a disgusting and cheap way of undercutting opposition. Lest I remind you, a lot of the people who were fired in the 1950's never even found their way to blacklists. They often were just fired because their bosses didn't want anyone who even gave the appearance of being a commie sympathizer around.

[ QUOTE ]

Second of all, if there is *any* hint of McCarthyism in this country, it's from the left in academia, where simply being a registered Republican is often reason enough to get a person denied tenure in a university.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is true or not, so I can't comment.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, conservatives usually employ this type of chauvinistic bluster to attack and impugn their opponents. Not liberal. No, you guys sneer down your "sophisticated" noses with smug intellectual superiority, using terms like "conservatives" (or whatever the term imbeciles use for themselves for these days) or "bozo-in-chief."


[/ QUOTE ]

Real intelligent arguments on both sides. You know something? I think the "love-it-or-leave-it" types are morons, too. I also think people whose only way of criticizing an opponent is to denigrate his or her intelligence is a moron, too.


I agree. If that was the only way to criticize Bush's strategy available it would be pretty weak.



[/ QUOTE ]
You're both idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which reminds me, time to finish my last minute Xmas shopping.

[Gamblor]

Patriotism is irrelevant to this discussion.

You know why people believe Cyrus and Alger and Michael Moore?

Cause they tell you what you want to hear. You want to hear about Bush's evil sinister plans, you want to hear about how the economy is geared towards making the rich ricker, you want to hear about how American soldiers are being wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq, because it all amounts to one thing:

the status of our lives, the reason why we're not fat and loaded on Crystal and driving Benzes and don't own yachts and not in charge is not our fault.

The government hates us and steals our freedom is inherently evil, and because of that, all our problems are not our fault.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

the government which governs least governs best.

That's not what I said. By that logic, no government is perfect government.

[andyfox]

I read more into your prior post than was there. It indeed is not what you said.

[elwoodblues]

I wasn't claiming that someone not getting a job because of affirmative action never happens. I think it happens a LOT less than people say that it does. It is just much easier to say that you didn't get a job because of affirmative action than because you were less qualified.

I think a lot of these stories come about in the following way. John (white man) and Chantall (black woman) apply for the same promotion. Chantall gets the job. John talks with his friends who try to make him feel better by telling him that he probably didn't get the job because she was Black or a Woman. Sure enough, both the friends and John start to believe that to be true. Soon it becomes a "fact" and is repeated often. Just a personal side note: I have been applying for new jobs throughout the year this year. I finally got one (after being rejected for several after being in the "top two.) This exact scenario happened to me (friends trying to make me feel better) on the two occassions when a woman got the position.

Now, to get back to the reason I made the statement about Affirmative Action in the first place...do you have any evidence of "simply being a registered Republican is often reason enough to get a person denied tenure in a university." Or is this just another "I know this guy who didn't get the job because he's (fill in the black with any of the following: white, male, republican, Christian)"

[elwoodblues]

While there probably is absolute truth to the fact that people believe what they want to hear, I don't know if your examples necessarily demonstrate that, but I agree with the general proposition (ironically, I was making the same point about people blaming affirmative action for not getting a job in a different part of this same thread right before I read your post).

I don't know if your Bush discussion really fits the mold...The reason that I want to hear about Bush's "evil sinister plans" is because I am a citizen in a democratic republic. As such, I need to make an informed decision when I vote because the decisions of elected officials are, to a large part my fault (especially if I remained blissfully ignorant of them.)

Wouldn't a better example of "telling you what you want to hear because it isn't your fault" regarding Bush be something like:
I don't want to listen to the substance of what the protesters have to say, I don't want to require greater evidence than was presented in favor of the war because if I did, it might mean that the war was unnecessary (and therefore many deaths were my fault). I would rather take everything the Administration says at face value, because then I don't have to take personal responsibility for a war that need not have happened. Now, I will let the administration make an after-the-fact justification for the war (mass graves) when the real reason we went to war was because of a (perhaps false) belief that we were under an imminent threat from Iraw.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Andy, I think you and I would agree on a lot of things: 1) The "War on Drugs" is bad policy and wastes money, not to mentioning crowding our prisons with 1,000,000 people who never hurt anyone but themselves. 2) The Patriot Act is just bad, 3) regulating stem-cell research is bad, 4) Our schools are getting worse despite all the federal money that's pumped into them, and 5) we don't need the government to "protect" us from those evil internet poker sites, to name a few.

Now, I'm not saying we'd agree on the remedies to each of these. However, my point is, once we empower the Federal & State government to take care of the basic stuff like punishing crimes of violence, coercion and fraud, mediating contractual disputes and providing the "common defense" (and it's no small task even defining that), maybe the other tough parts of life are best left for us to decide on an individual or local basis.

Too many laws make society authoritarian.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

do you have any evidence of "simply being a registered Republican is often reason enough to get a person denied tenure in a university."

I know why you said that, and I've been searching for the article I read about a year ago that made that point. To this point, I haven't been successful.

[Gamblor]

I don't recall Bush (or his crew) ever saying Iraq was an imminent threat. If I'm not mistaken, that was an entirely media-run propaganda spin.

The closest thing I can think of is his State of the Union speech, paraphrased below:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

I do take the words of the government of the United States at more or less face value. One simply doesn't ascend to the highest public office in the nation without a large following of believers and those who trust him in that position. The need for war aside, the Bush doctrine emphasizes a need for the United States to be the foremost champion of human rights.

Now, aside from what actually constitutes a human right, I doubt that as the world's most democratic nation, the one nation above all that provides the right to self-determination to each and every person who owns American citizenship, the right to question authority and enact beneficial change, the United States and its leadership must be trusted as an authority on "doing the right thing", even if it must sacrifice its own soldiers. I, for one, have been conscripted into the army in a nation that has lots of experience in wars, and I understand the position that wonders why our children are being sent across the pond.

Yet, read the actual resolution (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm) passed in the House of Representatives authorizing the use of force. Nowhere does it claim "imminent threat". Only potential threat, material breach of UN Security Council Resolutions, and harboring of Al Qaeda terrorists.

[MMMMMM]

I'm far from knowledgeable enough to be a grammarian, but I suspect you may be applying a general rule overbroadly or incorrectly.

The phrase "what I was wondering about" is a unit--it is used as a noun or an object would be used.

"Forgive me but I do not see how your response addresses what I was wondering about." or "...that which I was wondering about" or, as you put it, "...that about which I was wondering"

I don't think it is wrong because it doesn't sound wrong, and because the meaning is clear and identical to the other variations--but I could be wrong.

Also, your example of " "Thanks for telling me what you were talking about, [censored]" as being correct, would, if correct, make a mockery of the grammatical rule--and I don't think merely adding an exclamation at the end of the sentence fundamentally changes anything. I know you offered that example as a joke, but I think that example helps show why the rule does not apply in this instance.

Perhaps John Cole would clarify and expound?

[Cyrus]

"[Attacking people's loyalty to their country and insulting the president] are precisely the same thing. Both are an expression of opinion in a deliberately provocative manner."

While both expressions of opinion should indeed be allowed to be aired and heard as such, this does not mean that we should accept them as having somehow equal value in a debate! Accusing Americans of disloyalty because they disagree with or are disrespectful towards their President is not just a vile and shameful practice but also quite outside the proposition of American democracy. In other words, it's un-American, in the most profound sense.

The U.S. Supreme Court clearly understood this when it ruled that mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--even before the divisive words "under God" were inserted--was unconstitutional. "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds," wrote Justice Robert H. Jackson for the majority in 1943. This was, remember, at the height of World War II, when the war's outcome was very much in doubt.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."-- Edward R. Murrow

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

[Cyrus]

"[George W Bush is] Yale undergrad, Harvard B-school. I'm curious what you define as educated."

Umm, someone who actually learned something?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[elwoodblues]

Perhaps I'm remembering the political spin about "iminent threat" or perhaps I was reading the subtext of nearly everything leading up to the passing of the resolution. As for the reasons in the resolution, you listed three:

1) Potential threat - might be what the resolution says, but that's not how it was sold. Regardless, "potential threat" is not, in my mind, justification to launch a war.

2) Material breach of UN Security Council Resolutions -- This one is very troubling to me. The administration thumbs its nose at the UN then justifies the war by defending the UN. The resolutions were not the United States' resolutions to enforce, they were the UN's. Texas doesn't enforce US treaties, just like the US shouldn't enforce UN treaties.

3) Harboring of Al Qaeda terrorists. The links of Iraq to Al Qauda are tenuous at best. I continue to demand more for this justification.


Notice that the resolution justifications that you mentioned don't claim that it was because of human rights violations (as the administration so strongly pushed just a few weeks ago prior to catching Sadam.) The main justification - the one that, if true, everyone in the country would agree to - was that Iraq was an iminent threat (even if the actual words "iminent threat" weren't used by the president). There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of the country would not have been in favor of the war if that leg of the three legged stool was missing.

[Utah]

I am very disappointed that your usual crazy rantings are not accompanied by your usual wit, as that wit was the only thing that gave your posts charm. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Just so I understand:
Calling your president a Bozo, insulting your countrymen as warmongers, liars, scumbags, baby killers, etc. is very good and helpful towards open discussion. However, calling those people hurling these insults unpatriotic crosses some sort of line? hm......

Please explain why calling someone unpatriotic is vile but calling someone a baby killer is good? While either one may be wrong in their assessment, they are both just free expression.

Of course, this logic might be lost on you since you can't even figure out what a lie is.

"but also quite outside the proposition of American democracy"

So, are you calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw the ability to call someone unpatriotic? My guess is that a little someone is sensitive to the phrase as they have been called unpatriotic many times.

[MMMMMM]

"not just a vile and shameful practice but also quite outside the proposition of American democracy."

Very good, Cyrus: you are getting the hang of writing like Ann Coulter now!

[MMMMMM]

"2) Material breach of UN Security Council Resolutions -- This one is very troubling to me. The administration thumbs its nose at the UN then justifies the war by defending the UN. The resolutions were not the United States' resolutions to enforce, they were the UN's. Texas doesn't enforce US treaties, just like the US shouldn't enforce UN treaties."

Recall however that the last resolution, 1441(?), specifically provided for "serious consequences" should Iraq fail to disclose fully its WMD documentation, etc. And everybody knew just what "serious consequences" in this case meant since the massive U.S. military buildup off Iraq was well under way. So France et al had inasmuch given permission for war should Iraq not comply (and this was known in diplomatic circles). Then France reneged on this understanding and demanded a further resolution and lobbied the world to oppose the war. Of course this is what France had been deceitfully planning to do all along...anything to delay.

Also, just as an adjacent point, the only means the U.N. has of enforcing anything is through the U.S. So, yes, for all practical purposes the U.S. is the enforcer of U.N. Resolutions, and IMO it's time we told the U.N. they are useless, and withdrew...to form a U.N. of Representative Democratic Republics. Get rid of the U.N. and replace it with the U.N.R.D.R. No totalitarian regimes need apply.

[andyfox]

This is the kind of impertinence up with which I will not put.

[andyfox]

I agree, for sure, on 1 and 4. I don't know enough about 2 and 3 to comment, but let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that I agree. On 5, it depends what you mean by "protect." If the evil is that people are gambling, I agree. If the evil is that many sights are stealing or rigged, then that is a different story.

Whie the "war " on drugs is bad policy, this doesn't mean the federal government should have no place in fighting such a war. Same thing with the Patiot Act: couldn't a better law be written to accomplish what the Patriot act purports to be trying to accomplish?

In other words, just because a particular law or enforcement policy is demonstrably, in that it doesn't accomplish what it was intended to accomplish (or even accomplishes the opposite) doesn't mean that too many laws make a society authoritarian. We have tons of laws but I don't think we're an authoritarian society. Too many of the wrong laws might make us so.

[adios]

"1) Potential threat - might be what the resolution says, but that's not how it was sold. "

Who was selling it and who was duped?

1) Are you claiming that Congress duped US citizens?

or

2) Are you claiming that Bush duped Congress?

Bush was authorized by Congress under the War Powers act to take action in Iraq. You seem to have a hard time acknowledging that simple fact. I suspect it's due to the realization that if you do, you have to find culpability with members of Congress on both sides of the isle (as well as Bush). When you admit this culpability you have to acknowledge that members of Congress who authorized the action did so based on their own fact finding or that they're complete stooges. I'm sure you'll come up with something about Bush duping US citizens but that seems to be a major cop out when trying to reconcile the resolution passed in Congress authorizing action in Iraq. Bush wanted the resoulution but if he doesn't get it, he doesn't take action in Iraq.

"Regardless, "potential threat" is not, in my mind, justification to launch a war."

77 Senators and 296 members of the House disagreed with you including prominent Democrats such as Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards. George Bush disagrees with you and so does Bill Clinton. BTW I didn't read the words "potential threat" even one time in that resolution.

[MMMMMM]

"This is the kind of impertinence up with which I will not put."

Sounds a bit like Pennsylvania Dutch to me;-)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
77 Senators and 296 members of the House disagreed with you including prominent Democrats such as Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards. George Bush disagrees with you and so does Bill Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]

They must have been wrong too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[elwoodblues]

Your discussion about "serious consequences" does not change the fact that the resolution was the UN's to enforce. The US might be the largest provider of personnel in UN actions, that still doesn't change the fact that the resolution was the UN's to enforce.

You might be right that it is time we told the UN they were worthless...all the more to reason not to include violation a UN resolution as the reason to go to war.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

While both expressions of opinion should indeed be allowed to be aired and heard as such, this does not mean that we should accept them as having somehow equal value in a debate!

I maight say that in a true debate neither would have any value, but I see your point.

Accusing Americans of disloyalty because they disagree with or are disrespectful towards their President

Not that I think that this is an accusation directed at me, but, for the record, that's not what I was doing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Whie the "war " on drugs is bad policy, this doesn't mean the federal government should have no place in fighting such a war.

This might be a good debate for another thread. I contend that no government should have the authority to tell me what I can or cannot put into my body of my own free will.

I'll start the thread.

[Gamblor]

The UN is a group of partisan states that is a waste of time.

The fact that 300 million Arabs have 22 voting representatives while 300 million Americans have 1 voting representative is a travesty of justice, veto power aside.

Look at the UN conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. Hijacked by Arab activists, it turned into the single greatest anti-Israel public event in world history.

Now, if all of these states and protestors have a problem with Israel that's one thing, but to turn a legitimate conference on world-wide racism into a single week-long Israel-bashing session is indicative of the process of the United Nations - anyone who screams loud enough to drown out reason and rational thought gets their voice heard.

[elwoodblues]

I know that you are probably just making a separate point (that the UN is worthless) than the one I was making. I'll try to restate my point again (note that my position has NOTHING to do with the value of the UN).

The United States is a member state of the UN.
The UN passed various resolutions against Iraq.
Iraq violated those resolutions.
As a member state, it is not the United States role to enforce the violations of those resolutions. It is the role of the UN itself to enforce those resolutions and, if it chooses to do so, engage in military actions involving troups from its member states. This might just be semantics to some, but to me it is a big deal.

Analogous situation (kind of):
California is a state in the US.
The US passes a law stating that all states are required to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
One state refuses to do so. The US recognizes the violation of the law and chooses to enforce the law by using economic sanctions against the state...despite the urging of larger states to launch a war against the state.
Disagreeing with the decision of the US, California decides to go at it alone and launches an attack.

[Gamblor]

Members of an organization must remain "in line" if that organization is to strengthen itself (Assuming, of course, that the strength of the organization is necessary to carry out its mandate).

My point was that the UN itself is not be all and end all of world politics. It's a good idea, and there are people in there working hard to acheive consensus on a lot of issues.

But part of American ideology is having the chutzpah to go it alone if it believes in a cause, even if others do not believe it is worthy. It's the same reason you're allowed to campaign for a Democratic president - you believe that despite the current Republican grip on power, the nation (and more importantly you would be better off with the Democrats in power.

Conclusion: Keep working toward a "global village", but to forget the principles that make you an individual is akin to suicide as a sovereign state.

[elwoodblues]

I really don't disagree with what you're saying. I think we're just making two different points. Individual autonomy is absolutely necessary. It just doesn't make sense to say "Screw the UN" in one breath then "we're going to war to enforce UN resolutions" in the next.

[Gamblor]

It seems I'm not articulating my point.

Yes, that would seem like hypocrisy.

My point was that the UN does not consist of all these nations in accord with each other.

There are UN nations that supported the war. There are UN nations that were against the war - the reason the UN as a whole did not support the war was due to the Arab bloc and European states with Arab interests, esp. Russia and France. That was my "U.N.funny joke" post - that the UN does not have one viewpoint, but rather many different opinions as varied as the members states - yet the states who are able to shout loudest (i.e. most votes - for example, the Arab bloc's 22 vs. the Americans' single vote) are able to force the passing of resolutions.

That a resolution has been passed is by no means an indication of consensus in the UN.

Since there are some nations that did in fact support war efforts, such as Great Britain, the US was justified in using a UN resolution as one of many pretexts for military action. At no point did the US say "screw the UN". It in fact said, ipso facto "screw the member states of the UN that vote in blocs because it is one of their own kind who are receiving the brunt of the US military efforts, and screw the states that are so dependent economically (read: Elf Oil, the French oil company) with those blocs that moral issues are pushed to the side".

The second "U.N.funny joke" post was written to illustrate that it must be acceptable for a member of a group to recognize the valid resolutions that uphold the mandate of the organization - i.e. the disclosure of all WMDs. Yet, it must also be acceptable for a member to recognize the resolutions that are invalid - i.e. that do not uphold the mandate of the UN simply because the bloc is more concerned with maintaining its status quo - cheap oil for the French, arms sales for the Russians, and the dream of the great Muslim Pan-Arabian peninsula for the Arab blocs.

[Rushmore]

This is exactly the point.

The definitions have changed, and the notions of "fiscal conservative" and "socially liberal," etc. come into view.

Many like to think of Libertarians as "conservative," for instance, when in many ways, they are far more socially liberal than 95% of those on that side of the aisle.

I don't know. I mean, I am told that LBJ was a big old Liberal Civil Rights Nut.

I am told quite a lot of things, actually.

[Cyrus]

"Please explain why calling someone unpatriotic is vile but calling someone a baby killer is good?"

Calling a Vietnam vet a "baby killer" just because they went over to serve is objectionable, as it is to call someone "unpatriotic" because he happens to disagree with official American policy. (I personally don't find equal fault with the two, but this is not the point.)

The important thing I'm pointing out is that both are much more vile than calling your President a "scumbag", a "bozo" or worse epithets.

"While either one may be wrong in their assessment, they are both just free expression."

I agree. This is why I responded under the Klingon's post, who also supports free expression. (What I wanted to do was to point out the danger of relativism.)

"Calling your president a Bozo, insulting your countrymen as warmongers, liars, scumbags, baby killers, etc. is very good and helpful towards open discussion. However, calling those people hurling these insults unpatriotic crosses some sort of line?"

The above is somewhat confused writing. Let me clarify, again : The inclination to dissent against authority is IMHO the very essence and the distinctive characteristic of American democracy. Some people who know better, such as Presidents, Founding Fathers, et al, have even gone as far as suggesting that dissent is a duty. An ex-Prez flat out invited Americans to be disrespectful to their Prez!

(Note to MMMMMM : Ann Coulter is a certifiable lunatic. I could not aspire to write like her, not even with an overdose of johncoles.)

Insulting your Prez is healthy for democracy! Even when you're not being correct nor accurate. (The man behind the Presidency is not the objective. The seat of power is.) Insulting your fellow countrymen is not healthy, righteous or constructive to democracy.

If you fail to distinguish the differences between a fellow citizen and the Prez, what can I tell you? Only that you, as a Libertarian (I'm a Libertine myself, so we're in the same bed), should know better. And that the 1776 Revolution's war cry was NOT "Up with the President" but something else, and quite teling.

"...that wit ... gave your posts charm."

You're such a flirt. So what are you wearing right now?

[John Cole]

Diane Sawyer: Why didn't you distinguish between Saddam's having WMDs and Saddam's quest to obtain WMDs?

President Bush: What's the difference?

[ACPlayer]

Well, I would have no objection to the US withdrawing from the UN.

In fact, we can withdraw from the UN, close our borders, impose steel tarriffs, shut down commerce with the outside world and have a massive in home circle jerk.

Until we decide to do that, lets have the body that decided to threaten seaious consequences decide what those consequences are. I dont think our diplomatic skills are really that bad (at least they weren't before Bush showed up!).

[Utah]

Ah....I think I see what you are saying and I pretty much agree with you.

However, one cannot blast the president, his countrymen, his country, etc. under the guise of free speech and then feel wronged when that same free speech is used to toss a few grenades back at them.

To try and assign "points" to how vile something is compared to something else is a futile effort.

Ann Coultier is a complete whack job. She is a poster child for deep therapy. She has so much hate in her that wants to get out that she twitches.

So what are you wearing right now?
Wool......lots and lots of wool. Its Minnesota and it is freakin freezing. I am looking out my office window and I see nothing but white and cold.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Its Minnesota and it is freakin freezing

[/ QUOTE ]

Very mild today...I see lots of white, but a lot of it has melted the past few days /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Gamblor]

In fact, we can withdraw from the UN, close our borders, impose steel tarriffs, shut down commerce with the outside world and have a massive in home circle jerk.

Don't get me wrong, I think the UN, in principle is a worthy and valid entity.

Shame it has been hijacked by blocs of severely anti-American states, anti-American even before Bush), consisting of the 1) Arab Bloc of 22 states in North Africa and the Middle East, 2) Europeans in bed with Arab oil interests and a world-domination complex based in nothing but blind hatred of American hegemony, and appeasement of the Arab oil barons.

[Utah]

Thats the problem right there. Its below freezing and we consider it mild.

[elwoodblues]

True...it's all relative I guess. The crazy thing is I was walking around without a jacket this weekend (because of how "warm" it was.) Where in the cities are you at?

[Utah]

Eden Prarie right next to Bear Path. Yourself?

That says something about Minnesotans when they think 35 is a heat wave.

My sister went to Rice University in Houston and she once brought her boyfriend back. It was about 30 at the time and he thought he was going to freeze to death. He was wearing a huge wool jacket zipped to the top with a hood. The drawstring was pulled until he looked like Kenny from Southpark. Everyone else was walking about with their jackets unzipped and no hats.

[ACPlayer]

So, lets see, the UN is a worthy entity but only if its members side with the US and Israel in all matters as opposed to promoting their interests. The US should simply ignore the body when it disagrees. Funny idea of a worthy entity.

You guys simply dont realize that there exist other points of view which to the holders of those points of view are completely valid and reasonable. You are so caught up in being right you forget that a being right is relative to a frame of reference.

[elwoodblues]

I live in Rosemount (south suburbs) and work in Eagan (also south 'burbs).

[Gamblor]

Straw arguments abound here.

It's one thing to oppose the US with a valid alternative.

But even as the bloc admitted to the Iraqi leadership's wrongdoing, it refused to take action in support of its own resolutions, simply because of its love affair with Arab oil.

Sanctions in place for 13 years didn't work, you tell me how to preserve freedom for the people who toppled the statue.