Liberals Go To Great Lengths

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100

And what did he cut…did you not know about this? B-1, you know the one we are using…now. How about the Navy. You know the guys with the ships. Read up on what they lost.

I served in the military during the final Reagan years. He built it up after the Carter years. He gave the military their pride back.

This was about the time you were in pre-K wasn’t it?

The Carter buildup! Do you wear an out to lunch sign around your neck when you write this stuff.

A.Check the budgets B. Mumble apology.
C. the B-1a was canceled because its mission(high altitude penetration) would have been suicide due to soviet improvements. The B-1 program continued and became the B-1b(low altitude penetration/low-radar crossection).
d. Thank you (sincerely) for your service!

You have no grasp of military history, strategy or tactics son.

You’re welcome![/quote]
I love military history! And I never discussed tactics or strategy, or military history! Regardless inept little Carter began a military buildup after post-vietnam cutbacks, not debating that Reagan ramped it up, and I’m not defending Carter.

162

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
To those wasting their time with 100meters on his revisionist history:

First Law of Debate: Never argue with a fool – people might
forget who’s who.
[/quote]

It’s important for Dittoheads to never, ever get caught up in the facts…as your hero Reagan said:
“facts are stupid things.”

163

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
Congrats Joe you can cut and paste! Directly from the swiftboat website no less! Of course your guys like to leave out his service on USS Gridley, but hey we all know they’re misleading liars right! Because just reading this makes you think he just served 4 months, why would they try to do that?

gridley wasn’t in VietNam. If I remember correctly it wasn’t even actually on station.

I guess you can’t go even one post without a personal attack.[/quote]

Where is the personal attack?
And unfortunately even John O’Neil conceded that Kerry’s sevice on the Gridley was “recorded as combat theater duty” and that Kerry was “given credit by the Navy for serving in Vietnam.” So your first fact was wrong (a misleading distortion from the svt) and your follow up was wrong and your debunked by John O’ Neil!

Oh and Joe there are many real problems with Kerry, but his service in Vietnam isn’t one of them, everyone should be thanked for their service!

164

[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
Congrats Joe you can cut and paste! Directly from the swiftboat website no less! Of course your guys like to leave out his service on USS Gridley, but hey we all know they’re misleading liars right! Because just reading this makes you think he just served 4 months, why would they try to do that?

gridley wasn’t in VietNam. If I remember correctly it wasn’t even actually on station.

I guess you can’t go even one post without a personal attack.

Where is the personal attack?
And unfortunately even John O’Neil conceded that Kerry’s sevice on the Gridley was “recorded as combat theater duty” and that Kerry was “given credit by the Navy for serving in Vietnam.” So your first fact was wrong (a misleading distortion from the svt) and your follow up was wrong and your debunked by John O’ Neil!

Oh and Joe there are many real problems with Kerry, but his service in Vietnam isn’t one of them, everyone should be thanked for their service![/quote]

At some point, during adult life, you have to look around and say just about everyone disagrees with you about everything you say. At least here.

There’s a lot to be said about standing by your opinions but perhaps you may find more interesting debate with people who have a similar viewpoint and think you have something to say. Just a thought.

I have always wondered why the “anti’s” constantly bash their heads against the wall opposing everything, often without rhyme or reason. Don’t they have radical discussion boards where people might respect what you have to say.

I’m not liberal bashing, not that I don’t on occasion, it’s just some of the libs make good point now and again and are worthy of debating.

I said before, and this is not an attack, that you are slipping into Al Shades territory. That’s the territory where everything you say gets automatically discounted.

165

I don’t want to contribute to the further derailment of this idiotic conversation (that’s what you get when you start on the wrong foot!), much less of the Reagan tangent. However, I’m very much tired of seeing the rampant Liberal-bashing in these forums, so I’ll step in.

As it happens every so often, there was a very interesting debate today at Stanford about US / European relations. You can read about it here:

http://continuingstudies.stanford.edu/course/EVT87.asp

One of the many things discussed over the three hours was the fall of the Soviet Empire.

I was there, and, unless you want to also call ignorant, stupid and childish to not only the participants of the debate (one of them was the President of Stanford when Condi was the Provost) but also the audience (mainly professors and alumni), I’d suggest you stop badgering people on their position about the passive role of Reagan on the fall of communism.

Everybody in the panel and in the audience (myself included) was in agreement that the only part that Reagan had in the fall of the Soviet Empire was the fact that he was smart enough to listen to his advisors and help let the unavoidable happen. And smile for the photo ops.

The fundamental reason the Soviet Empire fell was because it was bankrupt.

Yes, besides the fact that Communism is fundamentally flawed and would inevitably lead to bankrupcy (Marx himself was appalled the the prospect of hist theories being used in the form they were), the process was sped up by US policies of isolation, military stalemate and competition on the arms market (hardly noble endeavors, only justifiable if you believe that ends justify the means). Those policies snowballed into the USSR having a military budget that was over 30% of the GDP. Which is not nice, if you have a broken enonomic and political system.

Now, was that Reagan’s idea? No. Many US presidents – Democrat and Republican – built and sustained that policy. With the help of many people, ranging from several European politicians to Pope John Paul II, to the people of the Eastern Europe themselves.

Yes, the people of Eastern Europe themselves. Even recently they again proved their courage in Ukraine.

Yes, several European politicians – or are you telling me that Helmut Kohl was supporting the USSR? Was he buying their goods and/or weapons (like China, our current dear friend, was?). No. Was it because he was afraid of the big bad wolf? I don’t think so – he was just smart enough to know it was the best policy at the time.

If that’s what you are calling Domino effect, that’s fair. However, Reagan was just in the tail end of the Domino, not remotely in the start.

I’ll even say (as many people today said) the origin point was actually JFK.

Yes, the consensus was that JFK started the “Domino effect”. He tipped the first piece.

Do you honestly think that if Reagan had been the president in 1961, for example, and said “Mr. Khrushchev, tear down that wall!” that the response would have been anything but laughter?

Everybody was also in agreement that Reagan could not have done anything to stop the inevitable. At most, he could have prolonged things a bit if he had been dumb enough to relax previous policies for Gorbachev. He literally just played along. Much like Europe. It’s just his acting skills and flair for the dramatic seemed to have been very effective at convincing some people like yourself that it was anything more than that.

Kudos to him for being a great actor after all.

If you really want to credit a Republican president that badly, there were others between JFK and Reagan that you can pick from – which had an equally small role in the whole thing.

Reagan was just a piece of the puzzle… and a very small one at that.

Unless you want to argue that somebody that lets a falling stone continue to fall should be commended for being “steadfast” and “proud” by not stopping it.

Talk about romanticizing ineptness…

166

Your link doesn’t work. I’d like to know who else besides COndi was on the panel.

Forgive me if I don’t fall down and worship at the feet of Stanford’s faculty. Bashing Reagan would be a bit of preaching to the choir if I were guessing at the political makeup of the audience.

Academia and spin doctors - what is your fascination with making sure you piss on Reagan’s grave?

You are upset about liberal-bashing? What do you call it when a bunch of eggheads gather together, pat themselves on the back for being so much smarter than the massses, and proceed to marginalize one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century?

Check your hypocrisy at the door.

And I am more than old enough to decide how I will behave, and how I won’t. Your condecension in real life will get you hurt. If you doubt my word, climb out of you ivory tower, and talk down your distened nose to someone who works for a living.

This is why people hate liberals. Your hypocrisy and condecension smacks of the elitism that has cost you election after election.

167

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Your link doesn’t work. I’d like to know who else besides COndi was on the
panel.

[…]

This is why people hate liberals. Your hypocrisy and condecension smacks of the elitism that has cost you election after election.
[/quote]

Actually there was a member of the audience that asked the panel something like:

“Well, the question that strikes me right now is: if this Administration’s policies are so wrong why doesn’t the American people figure that out? Are we that dumb?”

The panelists used caution responding to that – basically justifying it the same way I usually do: a mix of strong nation-state tradition and wishful thinking (two concepts that complete escape the Europeans as a whole, by the way). They did not justify it with ineptness. That word we reserve for Republican Presidents, not for you or the people that elect them.

So rather than making your point and start questioning your intellectual prowess, I’ll let you show off that prowess and ask you to explain to me this:

Why did you, onstead of assuming that there’s something wrong on your side, immediately jump to the conclusions that a) My link is broken (it’s not – it’s working perfectly) b) Condi was in the panel (where the heck did I say that!!! Did you actually read my post? Or did you skim? C’mon, be honest now) and c) That it’s been the elitism that has “cost” the Democrats election after election (it’s not – it’s much more profound and serious than that).

After you explain that, maybe I’ll change my opinion. Until then, my opinion (which I’ve stated before) is:

The fundamental problem with liberals that makes then un-electable in this country is not lack of (new) ideas, or smugness, or, much less, hypocrisy. Those are traits that are shared by people from all walks of life and political orientation. The problem specific to liberals is that they’re swimming against the current of Americanism.

Republicans present a neatly tied package: one of a united tradionalist front; a group of people all of the same mind, determined to preserve the traditions of this great country. The embodiment of the Traditional, Familiar, Conservative, Safe, Trustworthy, All-American, Nation-State concept.

The normal state of affairs of this country is having a Republican government. That’s the “establishment”. Most people in this country will either support or tolerate a tradional, Republican, government rather than anything else. Democrats only win after the Republicans blantantly screw up (and I mean BLATANTLY – apparently Bush Junior is not blatant enough) and become (temporarily) non-electable.

Even if they emulate the Republican’s ability to package their agenda in a tradional right-wing wrap (even when deep down it’s not – e.g., the current budget deficit would be much more “traditional” of a liberal government) or their ability to present the illusion of a completely united front (even though deep down there are in fact divisions in the Republican party as much as in the Democratic – it’s just that they’re much better at hiding it), Republicans would still win by default. Because, well, they’re the default.

Fortunately, instead of becoming resentful of the Red States or secretely wishing that the Republicans screw up this country enough to give us eight measly years of relief, liberals can find a much more constructive comfort in the fact that the Federal Government has very little actual influence in our lives – and try to forget about how the 25% of our gross income that goes to them is spent.

But c’mon, be honest… You don’t really hate Liberals. You want to assimilate us, not get rid of us. How do you otherwise explain all the Conservatives trying to convince the few remaining, brave, Liberals on this forum to cross over to the Dark Side? Deep down, you must love us in some way. Admit it… :slight_smile:

The alternative would be that you just want us to shut up, but, well, that would be very anti-First Amendment of you, wouldn’t it?

After all, for now, this is still the Land of the Free. For now. Failing that, there’s always Canada…

168

Communism wasn’t defeated at Stanford that’s for sure.

Academics tend to have academic discussions…not very well transferrable to the real world.

169

[quote]hedo wrote:
Communism wasn’t defeated at Stanford that’s for sure.

Academics tend to have academic discussions…not very well transferrable to the real world.[/quote]

True, and given the fact that about 80% Of the faculty are registered democrats (and quite liberal) most of what comes out of these tyeps of institutions must be questioned.

170

i don’t care either way:)

171

[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Your link doesn’t work. I’d like to know who else besides COndi was on the
panel.

[…]

This is why people hate liberals. Your hypocrisy and condecension smacks of the elitism that has cost you election after election.

Actually there was a member of the audience that asked the panel something like:

“Well, the question that strikes me right now is: if this Administration’s policies are so wrong why doesn’t the American people figure that out? Are we that dumb?”

The panelists used caution responding to that – basically justifying it the same way I usually do: a mix of strong nation-state tradition and wishful thinking (two concepts that complete escape the Europeans as a whole, by the way). They did not justify it with ineptness. That word we reserve for Republican Presidents, not for you or the people that elect them.

So rather than making your point and start questioning your intellectual prowess, I’ll let you show off that prowess and ask you to explain to me this:

Why did you, onstead of assuming that there’s something wrong on your side, immediately jump to the conclusions that a) My link is broken (it’s not – it’s working perfectly) b) Condi was in the panel (where the heck did I say that!!! Did you actually read my post? Or did you skim? C’mon, be honest now) and c) That it’s been the elitism that has “cost” the Democrats election after election (it’s not – it’s much more profound and serious than that).

After you explain that, maybe I’ll change my opinion. Until then, my opinion (which I’ve stated before) is:

The fundamental problem with liberals that makes then un-electable in this country is not lack of (new) ideas, or smugness, or, much less, hypocrisy. Those are traits that are shared by people from all walks of life and political orientation. The problem specific to liberals is that they’re swimming against the current of Americanism.

Republicans present a neatly tied package: one of a united tradionalist front; a group of people all of the same mind, determined to preserve the traditions of this great country. The embodiment of the Traditional, Familiar, Conservative, Safe, Trustworthy, All-American, Nation-State concept.

The normal state of affairs of this country is having a Republican government. That’s the “establishment”. Most people in this country will either support or tolerate a tradional, Republican, government rather than anything else. Democrats only win after the Republicans blantantly screw up (and I mean BLATANTLY – apparently Bush Junior is not blatant enough) and become (temporarily) non-electable.

Even if they emulate the Republican’s ability to package their agenda in a tradional right-wing wrap (even when deep down it’s not – e.g., the current budget deficit would be much more “traditional” of a liberal government) or their ability to present the illusion of a completely united front (even though deep down there are in fact divisions in the Republican party as much as in the Democratic – it’s just that they’re much better at hiding it), Republicans would still win by default. Because, well, they’re the default.

Fortunately, instead of becoming resentful of the Red States or secretely wishing that the Republicans screw up this country enough to give us eight measly years of relief, liberals can find a much more constructive comfort in the fact that the Federal Government has very little actual influence in our lives – and try to forget about how the 25% of our gross income that goes to them is spent.

But c’mon, be honest… You don’t really hate Liberals. You want to assimilate us, not get rid of us. How do you otherwise explain all the Conservatives trying to convince the few remaining, brave, Liberals on this forum to cross over to the Dark Side? Deep down, you must love us in some way. Admit it… :slight_smile:

The alternative would be that you just want us to shut up, but, well, that would be very anti-First Amendment of you, wouldn’t it?

After all, for now, this is still the Land of the Free. For now. Failing that, there’s always Canada…
[/quote]

Hspder-

Fascinating analysis. Really I think you hit in right on the head and with good clarity.

I agree that the Republicans and Conservatives have done a good job packaging the message and I think you have a good read on that message.

I will also agree that the reason the liberals have become unelectable is that they are swimming against the “tide of Americanism”.

The question that the voters seem to have answered is why? Why be against everything the country stands for? Why vote for the “anti” radical agenda that has taken over the Democratic party? To appease the liberal academics and fringe groups?

You know both parties are made up of people, who work for a living and pay tax’s. They also run companies and want to feel safe and make sure their kids have a chance at the same thing. It’s not about Homosexual marriage, more Welfare and bigger government programs. Most Americans couldn’t give a flying fuck what France and the rest of Europe think about our foriegn policies. Why should our elected leaders who represent us?

That’s what the current Liberal group doesn’t get…and from the looks of things will not get for a very long time.

I doubt if they sell Zell Miller’s book ( A National Party No More) at Stanford but if they do pick up a copy. IT’s insightful. The Dems think he is a radical…too bad. By the way in addition to being a Christian Conservative and a Gov. in the South, he was also a professor and a Marine. No wonder the libs hate him.

As to Reagan ending communism. He didn’t do it alone. What he did do is take a broken economy and a devestated military and transform it. In 8 yrs. the economy was strong and the military first rate (Carter defense buildup notwithstanding!) He pushed the defeat of communism over the edge by refusing to accept Detente or the status quo. He sought to defeat communism…not live with it. Should he have chosen to live with it, as the liberal academic class would have preferred, the USSR would likely still exist. They may have had a different form of Government, possibly more Democratic but the core would have remained. That was Reagan’s contribution. Academic Revisionism aside.

172

Pathetic.

Joe Weider, hedo, ZEB, 100meters-- do you have any idea how boring and predictable you are? You make a mockery of political discussion. The point is never discussion at all; it’s a lame-brained back-slapping fest between extreme closed minds.
To come on here and spend what has to be hours spewing stuff like this–As if every issue had a black and white answer, a clear cut solution that somehow fell along party lines perfectly every time.

It makes me laugh right before it makes me sick. Whenever I need a lesson on why humankind remains primitive despite its reasoning ability, all I need to do is drop by this forum.

173

[quote]The Red Monk wrote:
Pathetic.

Joe Weider, hedo, ZEB, 100meters-- do you have any idea how boring and predictable you are? You make a mockery of political discussion. The point is never discussion at all; it’s a lame-brained back-slapping fest between extreme closed minds.
To come on here and spend what has to be hours spewing stuff like this–As if every issue had a black and white answer, a clear cut solution that somehow fell along party lines perfectly every time.

It makes me laugh right before it makes me sick. Whenever I need a lesson on why humankind remains primitive despite its reasoning ability, all I need to do is drop by this forum.[/quote]

I’m not so sure what you’ve been reading, but you do seem to have your facts a bit off kilter.
Nice to know you can call us pathetic etc.
I guess that makes you pretty pathetice too, huh, since you’ve inserted yourself?

174

By the way, the position that there’s no black and white answer to things is one usually taken by gutless wonders who like to try to impress everyone else with their “sensitivity” and “open mindedness” etc.
Face it. In the world there are things you do, things you don’t. Things that are good and things that are bad. NO amount of rationalization is going to make something good into something bad.
And people who refuse to take a stand on something generally get run over.

175

[quote]hedo wrote:
At some point, during adult life, you have to look around and say just about everyone disagrees with you about everything you say. At least here.
[/quote]
Keyword: here. Don’t know if you notice, but most here are conservative.

As I’ve mentioned before, what’s fascinating about boards like this and freepland is people’s firm support even when it compromises their conservative viewpoint, is wrong factually, or not shared by most other americans. The philosophy is a philosophy against not a philosophy for, conservatives are voting for representives who don’t believe that the government should be helping people, but meanwhile live in a society awash in liberalism. They drink water and eat food protected by the government, take medicines tested by the goverment, read labels on their cereal put their because of the government, send their kids to public schools,drive to work on taxpayer roads, in cars with government safety standards, work an 8 hour day, with certain protections and benefits mandated by government put a paycheck in the bank protected by federal insurance, or invest in the stock market and protected by further regulations, and on and on and on…Meanwhile liberals are bad, radical, out of touch, see the paradox?

Why does 70 percent not like privatazation, why are bush’s approval ratings below 50 percent, this isn’t really radical stuff…(of course I think you know that)

And I’m not bashing conservative voters who are all great americans, I resent the party they vote for.

I don’t know anything about Al shades, but you’ll discount anything that doesn’t conform with republican conventional wisdom example the gridley, carter increasing military spending (is it a fact? and did cold war democrats increase spending and did cold war republicans decrease spending?) For once I’d like to see you and joe and rainjack argue in an intellectually honest way. Or at least establish a position of pure opinion unrelated to facts, My argument on Reagan winning the coldwar is Reagan is one piece of the puzzle that included liberals, conservatives, Repubs and dems,following a policy established by Truman/Marshall and others, and I never have seen this debated ever, despite this, on this board its Reagan won the Cold War! Not even America won the cold war, its stunning really.

176

[quote]The Red Monk wrote:
Pathetic.

Joe Weider, hedo, ZEB, 100meters-- do you have any idea how boring and predictable you are? You make a mockery of political discussion. The point is never discussion at all; it’s a lame-brained back-slapping fest between extreme closed minds.
To come on here and spend what has to be hours spewing stuff like this–As if every issue had a black and white answer, a clear cut solution that somehow fell along party lines perfectly every time.

It makes me laugh right before it makes me sick. Whenever I need a lesson on why humankind remains primitive despite its reasoning ability, all I need to do is drop by this forum.[/quote]

redmonk, It’s really hard to have discussion in here as soon as you support either logic, or liberalism. I’ll try harder though!

177

Boring and predictable? Okay…is this my wife? Oh never mind…at least you have a place you can go where you can laugh :slight_smile:

178

[quote]100meters wrote:
redmonk, It’s really hard to have discussion in here as soon as you support either logic, or liberalism. I’ll try harder though![/quote]

You got it half right. You’ve supported liberalism now try logic for a change.

179

[quote]hedo wrote:
Fascinating analysis. Really I think you hit in right on the head and with good clarity.

[…]

The question that the voters seem to have answered is why? Why be against everything the country stands for? Why vote for the “anti” radical agenda that has taken over the Democratic party? To appease the liberal academics and fringe groups?[/quote]

I cannot speak for the politicians. As I said, even though technically I’m a liberal I’m not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and even though I admire a few Democrat presidents, I’m far from idolizing them.

I can, however, speak for the academics, including myself. I’ve explained a bit our positions in other threads. There’s basically a combination of self-interest and research and analysis involved.

In regards to the self-interest, academics tend to feel and deal and work better with a more liberal approach. I’ve explained it before and I think it’s quite obvious why, and I’ve explained it in great detail in a recent thread, but I can ellaborate again if you want – it’s part of my day job, after all. :slight_smile:

But for now I’m going to focus on the latter part of our “justification for being liberals”, since that was the one that was discussed yesterday.

The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the body of reasearch points to the fact that liberalism provides a better, more sustainable quality of life for everybody – rather than focusing on GDP and creating huge assymetries, which right wing policies tend to do.

I’m not saying liberalism doesn’t have problems. It does, and it requires very competent people to implement and sustain it. Europeans have screwed up liberalism multiple times, even if the situation there is reversed (in Continental Europe liberalism is the default while conservatism kicks in when liberals screw up). However, research (and History, for that matter) has shown that conservatism provides poor quality of life for very large groups of people and is self-defeating and always eventually blows up (at which point Dems will have a brief window of opportunity), even if the people in power are really good at maintaining it.

I’ve said before that if you analyze the US from a purely scientific point of view and look at the classic indicators of quality of life – I can elaborate on what those are if you want – we rank very low (among developed countries) in that department.

Republicans will point to purely Capitalist, de-humanized factors: GDP, productivity, etc. As usual, Republicans have a brilliant, simple, seductive marketing strategy that sells like hot cakes. That’s fine – it’s just that even economists like myself don’t use those numbers to infer anything deep, since we feel those just show a very small part of the picture – it’s like evaluating a car based solely on horsepower.

There are many other examples, but do you know that the average, the median, AND the distribution of job happiness in the US is the WORST of any industrialized country, i.e., there’s no place in the industrialized world that people hate their jobs more than in the US?

You can argue that most people are idiots because if they have crappy jobs it’s their fault. You can even say it’s the liberals that are skewing those stats. Fine. But, as academics, we find it much more interesting to find a way to optimize ALL indicators for ALL people – rather than thinking about who deserves what (we assume that all humans deserve a decent life, and there are a lot of dirty jobs somebody has got to do) or if we are bulding a proposition US politicians can sell.

Actually, I’m convinced, as I explained in my initial post, that we cannot sell liberalism to the US. But we don’t see that as our problem (as academia). It’s not our job to worry about that. We can understand it, analyze it, but that should not change anything in the way we theorize policies. If for nothing else, because Stanford is listened to and respected everywhere in the World, not just in the US… Actually, these days, I’ll even go so far as saying people have more respect for Stanford outside the US than inside it…

And you know what the kicker is? Part of the fact that makes us liberals and academics is being able to function in and appreciate living in a country that is not in agreement with us. That actually makes things all the more interesting.

180

Wow here’s a crazy thought. A bunch of guys who like to argue politics and give each other shit about it could all post thier idea’s on a forum…a political forum. What a great idea. Who’d a thought a that?

Feel free to use your freedom of choice and don’t read it.