Is Staind your favorite group? They have an album entitled “14 Shades of Grey”, but I tink they could have simply titled the album “Vroom”.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Y’know, part of the difference between points of view centers around issues such as the following:
The US military crushed the Iraqi military. End of story.
The impact on life, US and otherwise, was huge and very probably not justified.
There are reasons, not related to 9/11 and WMD’s for invading Iraq.
I think the warhawks focus on item number 1, obviously. Sure, the US military can systematically take apart most military foes. However, taking apart an enemy military is only the beginning, as we see now in Iraq.
Warhawks like to call people estrogenic pussies for having concern for human beings that aren’t US citizens. Suffering in the world is obviously a Michael Moore’ian liberal media conspiracy. Taking out a military and government does not immediately and simply equal better lifestyles for a populace.[/quote]
When has the U.S. shown any disregard for the human condition? Moore and his pals would still be sending Ramadan cards to Sadaam’s palaces if the effort to ease the Iraqi’s plight were left up to them.
Taking out the government stopped the threat. Regardless of what the ‘Estrogenic Pussies’ want you to believe, progress is being made. Elections were held. At first, the E.P. response was, "you can’t have elections over there, it’s not safe -or- “You can’t have elections in Iraq, the people aren’t ready for them yet”. The E.P.'s were wrong on both counts. Now they are terying to discredit the elections by saying that they weren’t legit. We are training the Iraqi military, and we will leave that country in far, far better shape than it was when we got there.
You are absolutely wrong. We are not imposing our views on the world. We are doing what is in the best interest of the U.S., and the innocent citizens of Iraq, and Afghanistan - Freedom. This is not an imperialistic land grab - much to the chagrin of the E.P. crowd.
I love the way you conveniently throw away 11 years of history to make your anti-war argument fit so neatly with your “America is a bunch of bullies” bias. I know that the E.P. crowd have reasons as long as their girlie little arms as to why the U.S. is so evil, but we are not agressors. Enforcers, maybe - but not agressors.
No, part of the problem is that countries you assumed were allies are actually working with the enemy to line their pockets. If it’s an honest discussion you really want, then I think that O.F.F., The corruptness of the U.N., and the blind greed of Germany and France should be front and center.
[quote]There are a lot of troubling issues around this war, and if you can drop the party politics, they should be pretty damned obvious. It is NOT wrong for the populace to be a detriment to the war machine – modern countries are not supposed to be aggressive war machines.
Dammit, the country is designed to make it hard to support external agression. What part of that is a problem? The part where the government relies on censorship to ensure public opinion does not get swayed?[/quote]
Name a case in which there has been censorship. The E.P.'s definition of free discourse is the problem here, not censorship. We, as Warhawks, have the same right to the soapbox as anyone else. It is not censorship to call bullshit. It is not censorship to turn a deaf ear to the ramblings of freaks and wierdos. It is not censorship because no one will listen to the E.P. bitch and moan fest. That, my friend, is Free Speech.
Censorship is what the Canadians are experimenting with. What do you call it? No ‘hateful speech’, or something like that? Certain passages in the Bible can’t be discussed in church because they are hateful?
Are you serious? You have to be joking, right? There is more than enought room for everyone to voice their opinion. There is also enough room for dissent. There is absolutely no need to get all “Rodney King” over the fact that free discussion is taking place.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Thunder, I appreciate your post. I’ll admit that most of the things JTF posts seem far fetched.
I’d say they are often extreme diversions into speculation based on potential kernels of truth.
The trick, in my opinion anyway, is to sift through and find those kernels and give them due thought. In essence, again, there should be room for reflection and discussion.
So, to me, and perhaps me alone, the first post asks the question, does the Bush administration divert blame for adversity due to a unwillingness to accept responsibility?
Since opinions vary widely on it, I think it is a fair topic of discussion, though as a group we tend to rehash political spin too often to really get into useful consideration of the issues.
Anyway, something for supporters to consider, if you get the accolades, the credit, then you also get the blame. Don’t look for one while spurning the other…[/quote]
Sorry, but it’s just not worth it to hash through that stuff in an attempt to find a kernel of something that might be truth – especially if it’s not original and has already been discussed ad nauseum.
I haven’t seen one new idea on this entire thread – people with more patience than I have are posting previously stated positions. Perhaps someone else could tell me if I missed something?
BTW, while Paul Craig Roberts and everyone over at LewRockwell.com might like to consider themselves conservative Republicans, I think you’ll find them pretty far out of the mainstream, over there on the isolationist Buchanan wing of whatever territory they have mapped out.
Wow, quit popping up here for a short time and look what happens.
Just glancing around I see nothing but crap being spewed. Yes crap.
Also I discover that JTF likes to get his information from the World Socialist Organization.
You have to be very careful where you get your information. How many websites are run by different versions of NAFFA, PETA, or even NAMBLA?
I cannot believe people are still harping about going into Iraq, and all the “LIES” bush told.
Again, because people are so blinded by their infantile hate, they need to learn. What is a lie? Honestly? If your intelligence is telling you something, and the British intelligence says the same thing, and so do other intelligence agencies across the world, plus the leader of Russia, who admitted to the press he told Bush that Saddam had WMD?s, why should he not have believed?
Anyone who proceeds to say he lied loses all credibility.
Now no we didn?t go to war to give Democracy to Iraq. We went to topple Saddam. And again we did think he has WMD?s. Did he? Yup. We didn?t find too much, but he did.
Why did we go? Because we thought he was a threat.
Was he a threat? Oh hell yes he was. Does anyone pay attention to the fact that he still had his programs in place? That in a moments notice they would be up an running to create the most massive stockpile of WMD?s in the world.
We dodged a bullet, and too many people cannot see that. The hate for Bush is blinding them. Oh no, I must be a Warhawk. I have to hold hands and sing Kumbyah now.
I hate war, and wish that there was no war. But I am not blind to how the world is. Every time we try to put our heads into the sand, bad things happen. No there is no connection between Saddam and 911. But there are connections between him and Al-Qaeda, and he was a major supporter of Terrorism. That is a fact.
But no we should not go to war, just because he can make Chemicals that kill. They were not put together yet, so it was ok. Is that what you are saying?
Please people drop the hate and see the world as it is. If Saddam had no WMD?s, does it matter if he had the capability to make them at a moments notice?
Again it was up to him to prove that he had nothing, to allow inspectors to see for themselves that he had nothing. But he didn?t. Why? Because he did have something to hide.
It is easy to find articles that show how evil the Americans are, because so many people believe that Americans are evil, and anything we do must be evil. There is always a bias in the media, regardless of the media. And anti-Americanism is big in the world, and sells papers, and draws people to websites.
Now I did try to look at the clip of Fallujah, but I couldn?t access the clip. It did say I could buy it on DVD though. (I don?t think so.)
Now can we get past the Bush is evil, or stupid, or fill in the blank. When statements are made like this, please provide proof. And make sure it is not a link to some Enquirer type article based on rumor and innuendo. Or a socialist group bent on the complete overthrow of this country.
My favorite!!! Yet you wrote, “Nothing scares white people more than an angry, opinionated Black Man.”
JeffR
[/quote]
Maybe he keeps bringing it up to point out that you’re a racist?
Now, I may not be all that smart. I mean, it’s not my job to watch over a group of extremely healthy 18 year olds who never have any problems, and if they do I have one drug on my formulary to treat them with. However, I think the above quote coupled with your other opinions you have mentioned pretty much nail you as a not-so-closet racist.
[quote]Cream wrote:
Professor X wrote:
JeffR wrote:
My favorite!!! Yet you wrote, “Nothing scares white people more than an angry, opinionated Black Man.”
JeffR
Maybe he keeps bringing it up to point out that you’re a racist?
Now, I may not be all that smart. I mean, it’s not my job to watch over a group of extremely healthy 18 year olds who never have any problems, and if they do I have one drug on my formulary to treat them with. However, I think the above quote coupled with your other opinions you have mentioned pretty much nail you as a not-so-closet racist.
[/quote]
First off, “Cream”, that is not what I wrote. That is not a direct quote and it was taken out of context. It was also part of another thread. You can call me what you wish, but at least get your facts straight. I’ll wait while you find that thread and quote me word for word.
POX wrote (on 12/20/04 in the Softer Side thread of Physique and performance photos)
“Uh oh, I can hear hoosierdaddy firing up his keyboard now. Didn’t you know, this forum is for pictures to be posted. How dare you request that he not show more pictures?!! I would add more exclamation marks but I can’t scream that loud at work. There is nothing that scares white people more than an angry loud big black dude.”
This is the entire post. I want to make sure the “out of context excuse” isn’t validated.
POX,
I’m not going to get into an internet pissing match with you. I’m not a big fan of guys who talk tough over the internet (I’ve done it once or twice and wish I hadn’t).
My point is this: When you rail against supposed prejudices, it is the height of hypocrisy to turn right around and employ the same tactics yourself.
Ever consider that your examples of racism weren’t trully due to skin color?
Maybe those guys were inherently afraid?
Who the hell knows.
If you look for prejudice in every situation you will find it.
I guarantee it.
Even if the examples you cite are true racism, does it make you right to turn right around and do it yourself?
POX wrote (on 12/20/04 in the Softer Side thread of Physique and performance photos)
“Uh oh, I can hear hoosierdaddy firing up his keyboard now. Didn’t you know, this forum is for pictures to be posted. How dare you request that he not show more pictures?!! I would add more exclamation marks but I can’t scream that loud at work. There is nothing that scares white people more than an angry loud big black dude.”
This is the entire post. I want to make sure the “out of context excuse” isn’t validated.
POX,
I’m not going to get into an internet pissing match with you. I’m not a big fan of guys who talk tough over the internet (I’ve done it once or twice and wish I hadn’t).
My point is this: When you rail against supposed prejudices, it is the height of hypocrisy to turn right around and employ the same tactics yourself.
Ever consider that your examples of racism weren’t trully due to skin color?
Maybe those guys were inherently afraid?
Who the hell knows.
If you look for prejudice in every situation you will find it.
I guarantee it.
Even if the examples you cite are true racism, does it make you right to turn right around and do it yourself?
Think about it.
JeffR
[/quote]
JeffR, I grew up with racism and understand it. I also know the difference between that and someone simply being fearful of what they don’t understand. I work in a hospital as the only young black guy on staff as a doctor. Yes, there is a difference in the way I am treated at times and not all of it is negative and I don’t go and look for the negative in every situation. In fact, most of my days are quite positive because that is the type of person I am. I get along with most of the people I ever come in contact with. That statement described what I often have to deal with. To act as if there is no difference in the way a young black male will be treated in a majority white environment is a little retarded. While racism itself has fallen over time and decreased, the effects of a society still not accustomed to seeing blacks in positions of authority is still evident. Think about that as well. My statement was a humorous take on what I experience. You will be hard pressed to find anyone with sense who would see that as racist in nature. As soon as this society shows no difference in the way it treats people of different races and backgrounds, that is the same moment I will be unjustified in talking about it going on in the work place. Until then, expect more to come. How blind must you be to act as if this does not go on at all?
“JeffR, I grew up with racism and understand it. I also know the difference between that and someone simply being fearful of what they don’t understand. I work in a hospital as the only young black guy on staff as a doctor. Yes, there is a difference in the way I am treated at times and not all of it is negative and I don’t go and look for the negative in every situation. In fact, most of my days are quite positive because that is the type of person I am. I get along with most of the people I ever come in contact with. That statement described what I often have to deal with. To act as if there is no difference in the way a young black male will be treated in a majority white environment is a little retarded. While racism itself has fallen over time and decreased, the effects of a society still not accustomed to seeing blacks in positions of authority is still evident. Think about that as well. My statement was a humorous take on what I experience. You will be hard pressed to find anyone with sense who would see that as racist in nature. As soon as this society shows no difference in the way it treats people of different races and backgrounds, that is the same moment I will be unjustified in talking about it going on in the work place. Until then, expect more to come. How blind must you be to act as if this does not go on at all?”
You and I apparently have a communication problem.
Are you reading my posts? Or are you chalking them up to a “fifth grader” fit for skimming only?
If you are reading them in their entirety, than I am forced to point some things out.
I never stated that white on black racism doesn’t exist. I even believe that some of your experiences may have been true racism.
I asked you specifically, “What if all of them weren’t?” What if your witholding tests from Caucasians was trully unjustified. Maybe the guys were afraid of a bodybuilder. I know plenty of pencil-necks who wouldn’t give me tests due to fear.
However, if you are serious about eradicating racism, you cannot turn right around and make racist comments.
Period.
Comments like, “Is your neck a scary color red” is pure racism.
You seem to be the only person on this forum who doesn’t think you are spouting racism.
I’m not trying to eradicate your prejudices. However, if I can insert some sensitivity into your M.O. than I will have accomplished something.
The beauty of the internet is that it is an exchange of ideas. Pure and simple.
If I had to summarize, when you make one of your “humourous” remarks, remember: What would bother you, would also bother me.
I never stated that white on black racism doesn’t exist. I even believe that some of your experiences may have been true racism.[/quote]
Then your point is…?
[quote]
I asked you specifically, “What if all of them weren’t?” What if your witholding tests from Caucasians was trully unjustified. Maybe the guys were afraid of a bodybuilder. I know plenty of pencil-necks who wouldn’t give me tests due to fear.[/quote]
I never stated that I withheld any of my old tests from caucasians. Anyone who ran in my circle of friends (I hung out with some of the underclassman and went on roadtrips with them, the majority of which were white) got my old exams. You ASSUMED otherwise…and you know what they say about people who assume. I wrote that I gave my exams to underclassman minorities. I did that. I went out of my way to do that so that there wouldn’t be the problems that I dealt with. That doesn’t mean that I withheld them from anyone else.
No it isn’t. I asked a question. Your posts as of late come across as being pissed because I am very vocal with my point of view. I attributed that to you being biased. You have yet to prove me wrong.
[quote]
You seem to be the only person on this forum who doesn’t think you are spouting racism.[/quote]
Between you and “Cream”? Great company you keep.
[quote]If I had to summarize, when you make one of your “humourous” remarks, remember: What would bother you, would also bother me.
JeffR[/quote]
No, I have a feeling what bothers you and I doubt it is my statements.
“We’re all seeing the same shit happen. You and the rest of the “Bush Sucks” crowd just see it with an extremely slanted view. Abu Ghraib - was a trumped up politicized story. One designed to make Bush look bad in an election year. Please don’t tell me you are buying in to that bullshit. But since it seems to feed your idea of a criminal Bush - I can see you drinking the kool-aid.”
Lol, Auschwitz was also a lie, wasnt it? Stupidity is truly infinite…
So Ann Coulter isnt a weirdo? “Reporting from Satans Convention in Boston”,lol. The entire relgious right are…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, while Paul Craig Roberts and everyone over at LewRockwell.com might like to consider themselves conservative Republicans, I think you’ll find them pretty far out of the mainstream, over there on the isolationist Buchanan wing of whatever territory they have mapped out.[/quote]
I think the fact that the “New Right” can completely redefine what it means to be a “Conservative Republican” right under your noses speaks for itself.
The thought of a would be Republican calling Paul Craig Roberts “out of the mainstream” is without a doubt a glaring example of our current state of affairs.
What Became of Conservatives?
by Paul Craig Roberts
November 26, 2004
I remember when friends would excitedly telephone to report that Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy had just read one of my syndicated columns over the air. That was before I became a critic of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration, and the neoconservative ideologues who have seized control of the US government.
America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country’s population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals “end times” and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.
The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.
In the Thanksgiving issue of National Review, editor Richard Lowry and former editor John O?Sullivan celebrate Bush’s reelection triumph over “a hostile press corps.” “Try as they might,” crowed O’Sullivan, “they couldn’t put Kerry over the top.”
There was a time when I could rant about the “liberal media” with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the “liberal media.”
Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration’s lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration’s changing explanations for the invasion.
Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine.
Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the “liberal media” - The Village Voice is known for Nat Henthof and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don’t see the “liberal hate” in The Nation’s feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.
In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.
The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. “You are with us or against us.”
This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits of no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate.
That, gentle reader, is the full extent of talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, of the entire concentrated corporate media where noncontroversy in the interest of advertising revenue rules.
Once upon a time there was a liberal media. It developed out of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Liberals believed that the private sector is the source of greed that must be restrained by government acting in the public interest. The liberals’ mistake was to identify morality with government. Liberals had great suspicion of private power and insufficient suspicion of the power and inclination of government to do good.
Liberals became Benthamites (after Jeremy Bentham). They believed that as the people controlled government through democracy, there was no reason to fear government power, which should be increased in order to accomplish more good.
The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the liberals’ abiding faith in government. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person’s civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof.
Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.
There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.
American liberals called the Brownshirts “conservative,” because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction. Brownshirts’ delusions were protected by an emotional force field. Adulation of power and force prevented Brownshirts from recognizing implications for their country of their reckless doctrines.
Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a “strategic blunder.”
It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion - Isn’t this on a par with the Children’s Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?
Delusion is still the defining characteristic of the Bush administration. We have smashed Fallujah, a city of 300,000, only to discover that the 10,000 US Marines are bogged down in the ruins of the city. If the Marines leave, the “defeated” insurgents will return. Meanwhile the insurgents have moved on to destabilize Mosul, a city five times as large. Thus, the call for more US troops.
There are no more troops. Our former allies are not going to send troops. The only way the Bush administration can continue with its Iraq policy is to reinstate the draft.
When the draft is reinstated, conservatives will loudly proclaim their pride that their sons, fathers, husbands and brothers are going to die for “our freedom.” Not a single one of them will be able to explain why destroying Iraqi cities and occupying the ruins are necessary for “our freedom.” But this inability will not lessen the enthusiasm for the project. To protect their delusions from “reality-based” critics, they will demand that the critics be arrested for treason and silenced. Many encouraged by talk radio already speak this way.
Because of the triumph of delusional “new conservatives” and the demise of the liberal media, this war is different from the Vietnam war. As more Americans are killed and maimed in the pointless carnage, more Americans have a powerful emotional stake that the war not be lost and not be in vain. Trapped in violence and unable to admit mistake, a reckless administration will escalate.
The rapidly collapsing US dollar is hard evidence that the world sees the US as bankrupt. Flight from the dollar as the reserve currency will adversely impact American living standards, which are already falling as a result of job outsourcing and offshore production. The US cannot afford a costly and interminable war.
Falling living standards and inability to impose our will on the Middle East will result in great frustrations that will diminish our country.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Seeing as how you’ve been signed up for a whopping 3 months, you’ve evidently failed to read up on what goes on down here in the political threads. Had you done so, you would see thread after thread of this same argument. [/quote]
I’ve been lurking and reading stuff for a lot more than 3 months, but you’re right: I did skip the political threads.
Even if I didn’t read all the arguments here, I’ve read them many, many times on other forums, in blogs, etc.
Right again. All this stuff has been discussed way beyond death all over the place for 4 years now. Anybody would be hard pressed to come up with anything new.
Like the thread on abortion, I think the problem is mostly that people interpret facts thru their own set of values; and thus, there is no right or wrong answer.
I still believe though, that your current administration is being dishonest with the public so that they can manage to push their own agenda thru.
And maybe lying to the public will be shown in retrospect to have been the right thing to do. The Average Joe is generally dumb and lazy and cares more about American Idol or Jackass than what’s going on in the world.
I’ve also been torned between the “we’re all human, can’t we just get along” view and the “bunch of stupid religious fanatic camel jockeys; let’s just blow them all to hell.”
It’s all a matter of perspective. When I look at my kids, I can imagine some poor family somewhere in Iraq, wondering if the mortar rounds will fall on their house during the night while they try to sleep and wish they could enjoy the same peace and security we’ve got here.
Then I think about how I’d feel if my kids had been in a childcare inside one of the towers when the planes hit and I know I’d be ready to nuke fcking Mecca and Medina and send the whole crazy lot of 'em to Allah for post-life processing. You want your 72 virgins, fckers? Happy to oblige.
So I guess we’all agree to disagree (or not, whatever…) It’s not like any of what we say here will change anything, will it?
It was an entertaining (well, mildly) way to spend a sunday night.
Keep on pissing off those liberal bleeding heart traitor pussies.
What is it with this place and the concern for my reading habits?
For what it’s worth, I read a whole bunch of different sources. The more the better. It helps to consider different opinions.
The classics: CNN, Fox, NY Times, Washington Post, Time… etc.
Some Canadian ones: National Post, La Presse, Le Devoir (yup, french ones) and others. Anything but “Le Journal de Montreal.” If you ever get a chance to read that one, don’t bother.
International ones: Le monde diplomatique (French as in France one; one of the most interesting ones IMHO). The BBC (pretty level-headed). Al-Jazeera (in english, as I can’t read arabic…) Some others picked from “news.google.com” searches on topics of interest. It’s pretty interesting to read about current events from all those perspective. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe they’re talking about the same event.
The question was “which ones do I find credible”… tough one. All of them and none of them. I don’t believe it’s possible to be totally objective when reporting just about anything. Even the most insignificant incident is seen differently by every witness. When politics and war and power struggles come into play; everyone has an agenda.
Basically, I try to make up my own mind from what I can get from a bunch of different sources; always keeping in mind the bias of those sources. American soldiers are heroes to Fox News and most US media; but pretty much on the same level as the Nazis to Al-Jazeera and other middle eastern news source… I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle and that most soldiers are basically good, decent persons who have been put in situations no one should ever have to face; and that those situations, in group dynamics, can lead to both heroic and horrific acts.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What part of “out of the mainstream” are you addressing with that article?[/quote]
I think I realize what your getting at - the reason I posted the article was to show that someone you called “out of the mainstream” was not too long ago a respected Conservative who never actually changed his Conservative ideals - hence he (and others) fell out of favor when the party changed.
So if I read into what you are saying - Conservatism is no longer “mainstream”. Correct?
To add - I thought it was interesting to hear a Conservative saying he didn’t see the so-called “liberal media” the right keeps bringing up.
That should worry a lot of people when even traditional conservatives don’t see the liberal media bias the right keeps complaining about. If this liberal bias did actually exist, you’d think you could find at least one Liberal who thinks mainstream media is doing even a REMOTELY good job.
I myself happen to fall just RIGHT of center in my political views but the entire political spectrum has shifted so far right, guys like me look like Liberals in comparison.
When 50% of America thinks the media is too liberal and attacks it when it reports “bad news” or anything against the party line, it’s time to step back. While most journalists may be liberal, the media owners mostly are not and they’re the one’s who ultimately decide most of the content.
I’m not going to say the “F word” but the signs are all there. I actually listen to Limbaugh and Hannity a few times a week and the relentless attack on academia in particular makes me cringe.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
What part of “out of the mainstream” are you addressing with that article?
I think I realize what your getting at - the reason I posted the article was to show that someone you called “out of the mainstream” was not too long ago a respected Conservative who never actually changed his Conservative ideals - hence he (and others) fell out of favor when the party changed.
So if I read into what you are saying - Conservatism is no longer “mainstream”. Correct?
To add - I thought it was interesting to hear a Conservative saying he didn’t see the so-called “liberal media” the right keeps bringing up.
That should worry a lot of people when even traditional conservatives don’t see the liberal media bias the right keeps complaining about. If this liberal bias did actually exist, you’d think you could find at least one Liberal who thinks mainstream media is doing even a REMOTELY good job.
I myself happen to fall just RIGHT of center in my political views but the entire political spectrum has shifted so far right, guys like me look like Liberals in comparison.
When 50% of America thinks the media is too liberal and attacks it when it reports “bad news” or anything against the party line, it’s time to step back. While most journalists may be liberal, the media owners mostly are not and they’re the one’s who ultimately decide most of the content.
I’m not going to say the “F word” but the signs are all there. I actually listen to Limbaugh and Hannity a few times a week and the relentless attack on academia in particular makes me cringe.
[/quote]
Hmmm. I think you missed the point. I was using “out of the mainstream” as shorthand for “several standard deviations away from the mean (assuming bell curve distribution)”.
THe self-named “paleoconservatives” have tried to claim for themselves the mantle of “true” conservatives, but it seems that they are devoted more to a populist type theory that embraces some conservative principles, but goes off on certain tangents, the biggest of which seems to be an isolationism that defines their position on foreign policy, trade and immigration, among other areas.
I suppose if they want to go far enough back they can definitely claim that the “true” Republicans were isolationists – after all, they passed Hawley-Smoot and opposed all of Woodrow Wilson’s initiatives as well as FDR’s push for involvement in WWII. However, choosing to crystalize the views of those isolationists and claim that is “true” conservatism seems a bit of temporal cherrypicking to me, given the modern bent of the party – at least from Nixon forward – for free trade and involvement with the rest of the world.
Roberts is a smart guy, but he went off the reservation with a slew of isolationist ideas – and apparently got his panties in a bunch when those who stayed closer to the average view started questioning him.
I’m not going to say the “F word” but the signs are all there. I actually listen to Limbaugh and Hannity a few times a week and the relentless attack on academia in particular makes me cringe.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I heard one conservative commentator state that he wasn’t going to allow his son to go to college at a school that was so filled with liberal professors (I wish I could remember the specifics…may have been Hannity… but he hosts his own show and I rarely watch it enough to remember). Since when are we judging education for our kids by the political views of the teachers? It has almost become a lynch mob mentality where anyone who doesn’t agree with the extreme conservative right is viewed as near insane and looked upon as someone who needs to be shunned by society. I truly don’t understand why people can’t see the bigotry and closed-mindedness in that situation. Conservatives now see themselves as “above” the opinions of any others in America. It has gotten ridiculous and will get even worse until their ego hits a brick wall. It can only go so far…I hope. They have left members of their own party behind apparently in an attempt to uphold these “values”. Some say they don’t agree with everything, but rarely disagree with this type of mentality when it comes to the opinions of others.
POX, all due respect, but if you’ve got kids at Harvard and Yale who’re forced to falsify their political views–because politics has been pushed into everything at places such as those–in order to get decent grades, then there’s a problem. I’ve forgotten where the story was, I’ll try to find it. I read it in the past 6 weeks.
That’s not education, that’s indoctrination. And, lest we forget, indoctrination is responsible for some of the greatest horrors in man’s history, from the rise of the Third Reich to simple down home racism.
