Dole asking Kerry about Nam.

Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 01:22 pm
wow, what an interesting topic this has turned into. But anywho, in speaking of such ideas as disregard for ideas we do have the history going back at least to the 11th centurn so totally dominated by the models of thought generated by Aristotle/Plato (with the possible exception of Henry Adams). Models of thinking that has permiated virtually all discourse and reduced both methodolgy as well as outlook assumptions on what, Alexander the Grape? Utopia unfounded but yet in sight?
The entirity of politics resting on the woe and mis-begotten 'morals' 'forms' and 'ideals' of the 'philosopher kings' that have marched lockstep into the 21st centurn unabated. I do believe we are currently in a position which may be used to unload that burden and recognise that no man is wise enough to govern another by means of coercion and yet, the so called republicans and democrats equally refuse to consider the alternatives. Is it not time when we may/could consider that the greatest wealth of a society is it's potential for uplifting the value and merit of all men (women and children) vulgar as it may seem?
Education on equal footing with law being the most conservative of institutions along with the amassing/distribution of wealth running a close second could very well be indicative of a society slowly dragging his feet (and its army) down the long descent into the inferno of complacency because that's the way we do things. So it goes.
As Leonard Cohen once said "there is a war between the one's who say there is a war and the one's who say there isn't"
0 Replies
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 02:29 pm
Leonard Cohen
There is a War

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.

Why don't you come on back to the war, that's right, get in it,
why don't you come on back to the war, it's just beginning.

Well I live here with a woman and a child,
the situation makes me kind of nervous.
Yes, I rise up from her arms, she says "I guess you call this love";
I call it service.
Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be a tourist,
why don't you come on back to the war, before it hurts us,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get nervous.

You cannot stand what I've become,
you much prefer the gentleman I was before.
I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control,
I didn't even know there was a war.

Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be embarrassed,
why don't you come on back to the war, you can still get married.

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the left and right,
a war between the black and white,
a war between the odd and the even.

Why don't you come on back to the war, pick up your tiny burden,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get even,
why don't you come on back to the war, can't you hear me speaking?

---Leonard Cohen
0 Replies
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2004 03:44 pm

I agree there is no certain answer to any of these questions. Indeed it isn't to hard to think of examples in which both sides of the opposing views have been proven right at one time or another. History provides lots of contradictory lessons. The trick seems to be guessing which one applies at the moment.

Philosophers and great writers do influence the thoughts, outlook, and intellectual development of large numbers of people, often many years after they have passed from the scene.

People in positions of power or responsibility deal with the issues that arise before them as they have been conditioned by education and experience and their own natures.

Scribes, journalists, and historians collect the facts and weave after-the-fact explanations for it all, mostly for the entertainment of other scribes, journalists, and historians. Occasionally one of these rises to the level of the great philosophers or writers noted above. However that is the exception, not the rule.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 09:54 pm
What does all that have to do with dole and clinton?

Where is the guy who started this thread?
0 Replies
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 02:11 am
Welcome to the community, 1q2w3e!

1q2w3e wrote:
What does all that have to do with dole and clinton?

Nothing. As you will discover, it is fairly common for threads to wander off their original topic here. This is considered acceptable as long as the conversation stays civil. If you want to talk about Dole and Clinton, your best shot is to contribute an opinion about them. I would advise against complaining about off-topic posts, as it often leads to pointless fights over what's on-topic and what isn't, and whether off-topic posts are appropriate or not. No matter if the original post of contention was really off topic, these fights are guaranteed to be.

1q2w3e wrote:
Where is the guy who started this thread?

Presumably away. It doesn't matter. Authors aren't required to police the threads they started here.
0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:14 pm
blatham wrote:

First, and perhaps most importantly,

What happened to "second," or "third?"

I believe your initial sentence is false.

A false question?

I think the notion or goal of permanent partisan dominance is very extreme. I doubt Lincoln had this as a goal, and for the obvious reason. I doubt Goldwater had it.

If you asked either of these men if they hoped that their way of thinking continued to lead the country for years to come, I doubt very much that they would have responded: "Oh, no. We subscribe to the floaty notion that the nation is better off if both sides of the spectrum take turns running things, that the substance of these views is nowhere near as important as political patty cake." I'm sorry blatham but somehow I just don't believe that you view a hegemony of the Left anywhere near as dangerous as a hegemony of the Right.

But Norquist for sure, and Reed almost for sure, do have this goal. In college and after, Reed and Norquist worked together in the College Republicans under Jack Abramoff. Here's a quote from Abramoff...
It is not our job to seek peaceful co-existence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently....This means removing Leftists from positions of power and influence in every area of student life: student newspaper and radio stations. student government, Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Groups, and academia. We are replacing those Leftists with committed conservatives.
from "Gang of Five", Nina Easton, page 143.

First of all, it isn't a ideologue's job to seek peaceful co-existence with their opposition. Please show me a leftist ideologue that feels otherwise.

Secondly, the ideologues which you find so disturbing are hardly the personification of either the Republican Party or conservatives in America.

Thirdly, the dominance of one particular political point of view is only truly dangerous if you find that point of view to be sinister. Otherwise it might be stultifying, which carries a danger of its own, but (again) somehow I don't think that your concern with conservative dominance is that it will ultimately lead to a banal America.

The claim is made commonly, even by some older style Republicans such as Thomas alludes to, that the present party is extreme. It is. This is not the old party. And many of us think this extremism - the degree of it and the nature of it - is contrary to American principles of liberty and democracy.

So what? You, Thomas (perhaps - I think he needs to speak for himself) and "some older style Republicans" think the present party is extreme. Stop the presses, the Republican Party must be extreme! I, a former Liberal, think the Democratic Party is too extreme. Are you willing to concede, therefore, that it is? Somehow, I doubt it.

0 Replies
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 01:35 am
Vietnam wasn' the hell hole it is portrayed as being by hollywood and the hippy like peoples. John Kerry on a Swift Boat was not as Edwards says in the most dangerous job you could have in Nam. He was always trying to be like JFK and petitioned but was denied, and the later went aorund his commanders(who hate his guts) to get his own self inflicted M79 grenade fragment(not enemy induced) it was in by 2mm, as a purple heart. he reanacted videos of himself walking around in the bush, all fake crap, what a superficial soldier going aorund making reanactement movies. he beached his boat for the silver star an action that immobolized his boat and if it werent for there being 1 wounded or dead VC there when he got off, easily could resulted in tthe death of him and his crewmates, you could be court martialed for that kind of stupidity, but no he brings back the B-40 rocket for his report and pimps another medal out of the system, something most soldiers wouldn't even mention yet gets medals for it. If your hit with a 50 caliber round your ass is not getting up, your on the way out.
0 Replies

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 © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2023 at 06:49:36