Re: Question authority...
 

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.

Re: Question authority...
 

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).

Re: Question authority...
 

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

Re: Huh?
 

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.

Re: Irony
 

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.

Totally out to lunch
 

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.

Re: Totally out to lunch
 

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.

Re: Irony
 

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.})

Bozo-ib-Chief?
 

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.

Re: Bozo-ib-Chief?
 

he might be uneducated

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

Re: Irony
 

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."

Re: Irony
 

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

Re: Irony
 

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.

Re: Totally out to lunch
 

"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"?

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Bozo-ib-Chief?
 

[ 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.

Re: Totally out to lunch
 

The response was in the title.

As in, "I am..."

Re: Irony
 

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

Re: Irony
 

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.

Re: Bozo-ib-Chief?
 

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.

Re: Totally out to lunch
 

Yes...is one not correct?

Re: Bozo-ib-Chief?
 

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.

Re: \"If you don\'t like it, leave\"
 

[ 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

Re: Totally out to lunch
 

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]."

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Irony
 

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). [I have posted before about a terrific analysis of this process called Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott.] There are some individual rights that are always sacrificed when a society is formed.

Re: \"If you don\'t like it, leave\"
 

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.

Re: Irony
 

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.

Re: \"If you don\'t like it, leave\"
 

[ 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 ]

Re: Irony
 

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.

Re: \"If you don\'t like it, leave\"
 

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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: About Bozo-in-Chief
 

...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!

Re: \"If you don\'t like it, leave\"
 

[ 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.

Re: The biggest Con
 

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.

Re: Irony
 

the government which governs least governs best.

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

Re: Irony
 

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

Re: \"If you don\'t like it, leave\"
 

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)"

Re: The biggest Con
 

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.

Re: Irony
 

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.

Re: \"If you don\'t like it, leave\"
 

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.

Re: The biggest Con
 

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 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.

Re: Totally out to lunch
 

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?