0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:51 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Tico, just my curiosity but what do you do with us liberals that enlisted and fought in the trenches and came home with the firm belief that war is not the way to change the world for the better?


Thank them?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:54 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Robespierre, the guiding hand of the French "Terror", was the chief "progressive " of his day. The essence of the "progressive" political movement is a body of people who view themselves as the knowing elite who know what is good for everyone else and who are ultimately willing to force others to accept it. This is evident in the contemporary speech codes at American universities where "progressive' academics have decided just what are the limits of free speach and wwhat can and cannot be said on campus or at university sponsored events.


Lol!!!

Hmmm - all over this board the ultraright are claiming to be today's progressives!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:57 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Tico, just my curiosity but what do you do with us liberals that enlisted and fought in the trenches and came home with the firm belief that war is not the way to change the world for the better?


Ignore them? Refuse to believe they exist?

I wonder how many folk who HAVE been "in the trenches" actually HAVE a belief that war is a way to change the world for the better? I do not think I have ever met a veteran with such a belief - as opposed to seeing it as a grim necessity if attacked.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:09 pm
Dunno as I go along with your assessment of who claims to be "progressive" - not even sure I buy into what at least appears to be your category of "ultraright" (though I imagine I'm prolly in there by your estimation Laughing ). I wholeheartedly agree, however, with your assessment of actual combat veterans' opinion of war. I happen to have some relevant experience and endorse the sentiment unreservedly.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:28 pm
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050314/asay.gif
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:37 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Dunno as I go along with your assessment of who claims to be "progressive" - not even sure I buy into what at least appears to be your category of "ultraright" (though I imagine I'm prolly in there by your estimation Laughing ). I wholeheartedly agree, however, with your assessment of actual combat veterans' opinion of war. I happen to have some relevant experience and endorse the sentiment unreservedly.


Lol - you are centre ultra-right me dear. With that last statement you made a brief foray into centrist!!! :wink: (Of course there is an uber-ultra right, too - but thankfully seldom represented here.)

Yes - one finds mostly non-military folk extol the possibilities of war - or some military folk who never went there - at least in my experience.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:51 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Tico, just my curiosity but what do you do with us liberals that enlisted and fought in the trenches and came home with the firm belief that war is not the way to change the world for the better?


As McG said, thanking them for their service to our country is certainly appropriate .... not electing them to our highest office seems to be a good course of action as well.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:55 pm
Oh, I dunno, Tico - Grant turned out to be somethin' of an embarrassment, but I have little problem with the likes of Andy Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, or any of the 3 Georges.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 05:07 pm
I don't recall that Andy, Teddy, or any of the three George's came home from war unwilling to fight again if that should become necessary. What person in their right mind believes war is a good thing or the best way to settle anything? But what sane person will not do violence when it is necessary to stop unspeakable evil?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 05:36 pm
Ok then that's settled, I will not run for president.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 06:16 pm
Quote:
Robespierre, the guiding hand of the French "Terror", was the chief "progressive " of his day. The essence of the "progressive" political movement is a body of people who view themselves as the knowing elite who know what is good for everyone else and who are ultimately willing to force others to accept it. This is evident in the contemporary speech codes at American universities where "progressive' academics have decided just what are the limits of free speach and wwhat can and cannot be said on campus or at university sponsored events.


Typical pavrovian twaddle. Party line Rovian.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 08:45 pm
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Robespierre, the guiding hand of the French "Terror", was the chief "progressive " of his day.

... and Thomas Jefferson greatly admired him for being it. I think when Lash called her side "the neo-super-bad-mean-scary-Jacobin-Christian party", she was merely being true to her ideological heritage.


Did Jefferson write anything in praise of Robspierre? That surprises me. In any case Jefferson was by far the least of the founding fathers of our nation. In my view he is vastly overrated hy historians generally of a liberal bent. His Presidency was largely a failure and in his own life he delivered far more contradictions to posterity than did Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton who were his superiors by very wide margins.

Robspierre is an appropriate model for the much vaunted Franch revolution - an event that produced only impractical theory, the Terror, Napoleon, and finally the Burbons again. Compared to ours it was a rather poor second act.

Lash was guilty of hyperbole. I don't by the appelations. The real true believers, those who know beyond doubt what is really good for us, are the shrill protagonists of liberal political correctitude. The amusing events in the sacred halls of Harvard where the the hapless Larry Sommers cannot apologize or recant abjectly enough to the harpies of of feminist dogma is a parody of rational behavior. Even the Inquisition accepted Gallileo's recantation at face value.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 08:52 pm
Lola wrote:

Typical pavrovian twaddle. Party line Rovian.


You like that - "pavrovian" bit don't you Lola. Was it good for you dear?

Overall not much of a counterargument. It wasn't "twaddle" of any kind - rather good prose, goddammit!
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:36 pm
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Robespierre, the guiding hand of the French "Terror", was the chief "progressive " of his day.

... and Thomas Jefferson greatly admired him for being it. I think when Lash called her side "the neo-super-bad-mean-scary-Jacobin-Christian party", she was merely being true to her ideological heritage.


...and McG posted what everyone knew to be true-- I illustrated the stupidity of liberals' desperate attempts to find a name for the conservatives that bothers them. Neo-con was thrown about as an intended insult--but it didn't bother conservatives--

They are miffed because liberal has been a four letter word for a couple of decades.

They'll never realize it's not the name--it's what it represents. The liberals are ashamed of what they represent--and conservatives are proud. Can you remember John Kerry ducking the term liberal?

Now, they're dragging out "Jacobin". It's like schoolyard name-calling. Ridiculous.

I don't buy into labels, either. It's the substance the liberals better get serious about.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:38 pm
The Jacobin 'label' came from a conservative site, not a liberal site. Small detail.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:41 pm
I read an article using the term that was assuredly not from a conservative writer. Link?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:46 pm


Antiwar.com
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:46 pm
Perhaps we can all agree that, on both sides, they are all merely labels, nothing more.

Ironically the term "liberal" once meant one who favored free market economic policy and individual freedom. It still means something close to that in Europe. Ultimately these labels end up as parody.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:49 pm
Liberal could mean great things--if great things came from those bearing that label.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:52 pm
Lash wrote:
I read an article using the term that was assuredly not from a conservative writer. Link?


I posted it earlier in this thread.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 03:24:23