55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I would think Russia would have a problem if they were unable to inspect the anti-missile systems being installed. I have seen no evidence that they have been denied such ability to inspect. And if Russia installs anti-missile defense systems in Cuba and gives us ability to inspect, I doubt we would have any problem with that either.

We're not talking about installing new ICBMs here.


You don't need ICBMs when you are firing the missiles from the same Continent!

That's the entire point. Russia couldn't possibly 'inspect' our anti-missile stations. To begin, we could just move in whatever we wanted after the inspectors left. Also, we'd be giving up strategic secrets re: how our anti-missile systems work. We would never allow such a thing to happen.

Is this a serious post of yours, or some attempt to pull our legs?

Cycloptichorn
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:20 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

What makes me think that at least some European nations are eager to accept a missile defense shield is because I'm not seeing a lot of headlines where they are nixing that idea. Do you know something about such opposition that we haven't seen here?


Well, you certainly know about the demonstrations against those missiles. (There were a lot of reports about that, e.g. when Bush visited Prague.)

And in Poland, polls in 2007 and 2008 showed a large majority opposing hosting U.S. missile bases.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:23 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I would think Russia would have a problem if they were unable to inspect the anti-missile systems being installed. I have seen no evidence that they have been denied such ability to inspect.


I remember that POLAND wanted to give them opportunity to inspect one US base ...
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well maybe you have a point even setting aside your earlier post where you emphasized how glad European nations were to have the USA spend all that lovely money in their countries.

But seriously, Europe has reason to be concerned about a nutso rogue North Korean dictator with ability to launch a nuclear warhead as well as an even more nutso rogue Iran who have declared holy war on various infidels. I am unaware of anybody who has threatened Cuba, nor that Cuba has expressed any concerns about anybody's nuclear capabilities.

So it is indeed probable that we would take a dim view of missile launchers being installed in Cuba.

So who is threatening Russia these days? Why should they care if their neighbors look to ways of defending themselves from nuclear missiles that might be launched their way? Why should anybody care if Russia should install its own missile defense system? I mean we've had the capability to launch a nuclear bomb anywhere in the USSR for a good long time now and quite a few countries, declared and undeclared, presumably have nuclear weapons. I honestly don't believe they are worried about us launching one at them now.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:28 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
So Walter, where is it written that the USA can install any kind of missile launcher, offensive, defensive, or anti-missile, in any European country without that country's consent?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 02:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
Oh, that was the question?

Sorry, I responded to something else.

But to answer it now: I don't know where something like that written.
(Before 1990, it could be done here in Germany. And was done.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 03:02 pm
Okay, back on topic. In addition to Shelby Steele's thoughtful essay on conservatism, liberalism, and race--excerpt posted earlier today--I ran across this Breitbart piece that provides his perspective of him visiting the Maher show--I posted the transcript of a clip from that yesterday which clearly illustrates what he is saying here.

I doubt our leftist friends here will appreciate this, but I hope our MACeans do read it and give it some serious thought.

Quote:
March 16, 2009
My Real Time With Bill Maher
By Andrew Breitbart

Pretty much everyone I respect in media and politics recommended I not go on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher." But on Friday night, I defied that wisdom and had the time of my life.

I sparred with Mr. Maher, Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson and a MoveOn.org audience from hell that booed my sentences before they were completed. Unfortunately, my wife and in-laws, who watched from the green room, were not as enamored with the experience as I was.

Since the salad days of ABC's "Politically Incorrect," which minted countless right-wing pundits and best-selling authors, conservatives have rightly assessed the HBO version of the Maher show as R-rated and shockingly hostile to their worldview. So most opt out.

I totally see why. But I think that's exactly the wrong strategy.

The problem with the withdrawal approach is that it cedes the popular culture debate to the other side. We figure talk radio, a certain cable news network and some independent Internet venues will allow for us to get our ideas out to the masses. Well, those few outlets are greatly outnumbered. They are also isolated and targeted for destruction by the activist left. The sitting president (using taxpayer money) is now leading the charge.

In my neighborhood at least, this strategy of avoiding engagement with the other side isn't working out so well.

People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. "Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?"

This army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing. Groupthink happens, and we must take it on head-on.

One must get a copy of John Ziegler's "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" to understand the extent to which the traditional media have become an organized enemy aimed at conservatism, its leaders and its institutions. It was the tag team of entertainment (Tina Fey) and news (Katie Couric) that worked to take Sarah Palin down.

We can't win the political war until we take on the Hollywood and mainstream media battles.

By not going on "The View" and the Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Maher shows - or even David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Fallon, etc. - we are allowing them to define us into a very distorted and ugly caricature. Our most articulate voices, likable faces and best idea-makers need to go into hostile territory and plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of our ideological enemy and the apolitical masses who simply go with the media flow. (Our baby sitter has an Obama bumper sticker on her car, yet admits she knows nothing about politics.)

Upon walking off the stage after Friday's show, I felt like I had gone 12 rounds with Mike Tyson and Roberto Duran. But when I got back to my dressing room, my BlackBerry was filling with messages from people I've never met, many of whom disagree with my politics but were compelled to praise my willingness to enter the lion's den.

One that struck me in particular best illustrates why we must enter even the most unfriendly environments to explain our point of view:

"My political views would probably be best described as a liberal Democrat and I am writing to let you know that I was dismayed at your recent treatment on 'Real Time with Bill Maher.' I felt that you were given very little meaningful ability to speak; when you requested evidence to back up the claims that were being made, you received none and when you were requested not to interrupt by Prof. Dyson (and politely heeded his request) you were then constantly interrupted. As a side note, I have watched the show for several years and have never witnessed the audience applause to be so intrusive and so obstructive to meaningful debate. I suspect that you don't care much about what occurred and likely anticipated it. I definitely care, not least because it has been my opinion that the 'shouting down' tactics and lack of respect for evidence have been characteristics of the right more than the left in US politics in recent years. Overall, I still believe that, but what occurred on the show has given me much pause for thought. Please continue to engage in sincere debate with ideological opponents and please continue to exercise a higher standard of manners."

The next morning, the Starbucks barista recognized me and said he was a liberal. Go figure! Yet he also said my critique of Professor Dyson's knee-jerk use of the race card struck a chord. He also complimented my on-air demeanor.

My trajectory from left to right began with a similar seed of doubt. Coincidentally, it was the race issue and how the media mistreated Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. It's no coincidence I made that a central argument on the show, too.

We must plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the groupthink liberals in our dumbed-down and activist media culture. Yes, "Real Time With Bill Maher" is a hostile work environment for conservatives. But so is Hollywood - writ large. When conservatives withdraw from media and the entertainment business because they are intimidated or don't want to get down and dirty, we lose even more, valuable political ground.

Even though Mr. Dyson filibustered in a poetic jargon only a linguistics student could decipher, and Mr. Maher glared at me in his trademark smirk, and the audience booed my every utterance, I left knowing I won the rigged bout simply by showing up.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/my_real_time_with_bill_maher.html
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 03:28 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote
Quote:
:"Here is the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis."

You then proceed to use wikipedia's list of 'causes' put forth as causes of the mortgage crisis. The list is so broad it explains nothing (i.e. ...and government regulation (or the lack thereof).

But I have a question: What procedure would constitute a "Predatory Lending Practice"? How would this be accomplished, given a lender who is willing to forgo the use of hundreds of thousands of Dollars of his own money for 30-40 years? Please define the victim in this transaction. Would it be a home owner that not only gets the use of the home but also the lender's money long term? How exactly is the ambush accomplished?

JM
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 04:09 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JM, It's pretty obvious you know very little about the ways salesmen/women sold property to unqualified people - to earn their commissions. That's easily identified as "Predatory Lending Pratice."
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 06:36 pm
Fanny & Freddie encouraged lending to people who were unlikely to be able to pay the interest much less the principal on those loans. Further, it was the Democrats in the Congress who encouraged this sort of lending, and refused to admit until it was too late that such lending would cause the USA's financial industry to collapse.

FOR EXAMPLE:

2003
*09/11"New York Times says, "Bush recommends the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
*09/25--Barney Frank responds, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country … I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
...
2008
*06/06"President Bush issues a plea to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
*07/11"Senator Chris Dodd says: "There’s sort of a panic going on today, and that’s not what ought to be. The facts don’t warrant that reaction, in my opinion … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that. "
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 06:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycoptichorn wrote: "
Quote:
Russia is against it because it emboldens the Eastern European nations in their relations with Russia.""


This has a lot to do with it. Two things here; Russia still feels the need to show relevance re international relations (super power thing--let's face it the G-8 has always been a sop to Russia and should have properly been referred to as the G-7 plus Russia) which then brings to light its ancient insecurities re its neighbors. Many of those, like Poland, it regards as its Near Abroad. It has been said that if your country borders Russia, the Russians will regard you as either an enemy or a colony.
Eastern European nations know this instinctively and some like Poland have welcomed an opportunity to ingratiate themselves to America (Not the West...America specifically). They would welcome a relationship, both economic and political, akin to the American/Japanese relationship where Russia takes the place of China.

Obama has made the same mistake as FDR thru to Bush in Presidents thinking they have an honest negotiating relationship with the Bear (with the possible exception of Truman and the definite exception of Reagan). Nixon and Kissinger's detente, like FDR's New Deal, just prolonged the agony of the situation. Reagan's solution regarding the U.S./Soviet contest was simply this: "We win They lose". He knew the Russians were obsessed with two things; their national security and the space competition with the U.S. on which they spent so much national capital that they couldn't even provide toilet paper and windshield wipers for their citizens after those bills were paid. The Soviets were convinced the only thing that would protect them from U.S. aggression was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Reagan, by employing the mere threat of American developed Star Wars technology presented a proposed negation of the only defense the Soviets thought they had.

It was a brilliant bluff made possible by our reputation in technological advances which, in turn, was made possible by our economy--those were the good ole days.

The Russians see Obama better then he sees himself and like Khrushchev did to Kennedy on their first meeting, so will Putin do to OBama. The Ruskies smell weakness, the only thing Obama has going for him is that the Russian economy is in the toilet, but, Putin is not above using international boogey men to distract the populace from their domestic woes.

JM
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 06:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote
Quote:
:"JM, It's pretty obvious you know very little about the ways salesmen/women sold property to unqualified people - to earn their commissions. That's easily identified as "Predatory Lending Pratice."


That's why I asked the question. So enlighten me. Specific examples would be great!

JM
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 07:05 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Look it up yourself on the internet.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 07:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
But seriously, Europe has reason to be concerned about a nutso rogue North Korean dictator with ability to launch a nuclear warhead as well as an even more nutso rogue Iran who have declared holy war on various infidels.

The Russians understand that. Really! That's why they have offered America launch bases for those rockets on their own territory. If America had been serious about this being a defense against North Korea and Iran, they have accepted the Russian offer with tears of joy. This would make the interception of Iranian and Korean missiles so much easier! But strangely, NATO didn't take them up on that. And now Russia concludes that we had been bluffing, and that they have called our bluff. Pretty astute conclusion if you ask me.

Foxfyre wrote:
I am unaware of anybody who has threatened Cuba, nor that Cuba has expressed any concerns about anybody's nuclear capabilities.

Wait a minute -- isn't there a superpower in Cuba's neighborhood that has supported an invasion of it within living memory, and is continuing to push for regime change through a trade embargo and secret service operations? If only I could think of its name ....
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 08:05 pm
@Thomas,
Maybe. I don't know about any Russian offers but I don't know that there haven't been any either. As for that 'superpower' you mentioned, the Bay of Pigs was JFK's worst boondoggle of his short Presidency but he redeemed himself by staring down the Russians when they tried to install offensive missiles on Cuban soil.

However, all that was oh what....well over four decades ago? Whole nations are raised up from the Earth and/or cease to exist in far less than time than that, so I think we can probably go with current politics/diplomacy/intentions don't you think?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 08:06 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

The Russians understand that. Really! That's why they have offered America launch bases for those rockets on their own territory. If America had been serious about this being a defense against North Korea and Iran, they have accepted the Russian offer with tears of joy. This would make the interception of Iranian and Korean missiles so much easier! But strangely, NATO didn't take them up on that. And now Russia concludes that we had been bluffing, and that they have called our bluff. Pretty astute conclusion if you ask me.


"If America had been serious about this being a defense against North Korea and Iran, they have accepted the Russian offer with tears of joy. "

Do you REALLY expect serious people to accept this proposition????
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 08:21 pm
@georgeob1,
No I don't -- but serious people, unlike Foxfyre, also don't believe that these installations are not about Russia.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 08:30 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Quote:
It has been said that if your country borders Russia, the Russians will regard you as either an enemy or a colony.

Laughing

In reading Russian history, I think Russia's location as well as it being roomy, rich in natural resources, and vulnerable has made it a target for a very long time now. Probably few regions that have retained something of their identity for many hundreds of years have been invaded and/or been under attack as much as Russia has. So I am sure there probably is a kind of paranoic dread built into the national character that makes it difficult for Russia to be a good neighbor to its neighbors.

Nevertheless, I have a difficult time believing Russia, even stripped of its status as a super power, views any European nation or the United States as a military threat. I do suspect that some in the Russian leadership would very much like to be a threat to others again.

So to Thomas I would say that yeah, those plotting a missile defense system probably do have Russia in the back of their mind, but I think it is really a stretch to think that Russia fears a missile defense system for any other reason than it renders Russia less of a threat itself, and I think it is naive to think that it is ONLY Russia who is considered to be a threat to a peaceful world.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 08:46 pm
@Foxfyre,
Addendum: I also think that if Russia was the only consideration at this time, we would likely not be looking to install missile defense systems and likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 08:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
I believe the obvious reason for the US interest in installing ABMs in Poland were (1) That they were a moderately effective way to limit the Russian missile threat to Europe and therefore leverage over it(they don't help us much as one can readily verify by looking at a globe of the earth); (2) that they would be effective against an Iranian missile; and (3) that some of the Poles wanted them as a way of increasing their confidence with respect to their neighbors to the East.

The Russian irritation was very likely a result of their pique at their lost empire and, in addition, a reflection of long-standing animosity between them and the Poles.

All things considered not a very big deal.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 12:31:25