or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Fascism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberal Fascism - Page 3

post #81 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

You started a thread entitled "Liberal Fascism". Talking about what fascism actually is in such a thread is hardly "technical" or "semantical". If you just wanted to talk about liberals "suppressing free speech when it's speech they dislike" perhaps you should try a less histrionic thread title, like "liberals are dreadful hypocrites".

How 'bout I start a thread entitled "All conservatives are just like Stalin", and then get pissy when people insist on talking about how that idea doesn't really hold water, because I expected them to understand I just meant "conservatives can be somewhat authoritarian"? You would lose your fucking mind.

So either respond to the ample demonstrations of why "fascism" is an entirely inappropriate word for characterizing the American left, withdraw the thread title, or STFU.

There you go again.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo

Right on.


Right on=someting you agree with.

Crazy=something you disagree with.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Yes, it's the 60s! Every liberal is a dirty hippy, didn't you get the memo? And just like a dirty hippy every liberal hates God and heterosexuality and stable, two parent homes and simple decency and respect for ones elders and America and hard work and honesty and prudence and the smell of freshly cut grass on a summer's day.

They say so all the time at dirtyhippy.com, where the liberals post position papers detailing their utter contempt for traditional white values.

Really...stop. I have to go to work now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

This thread is really dumb. I doubt almost any of you understand the fine points of freedom of speech and opinion.

Let me point out that just because someone is the mother of a soldier that died, that in no way allows their opinion to stop all traffic and demand to be listened to. And I am an anti-war, far left liberal.

When two sides debate an issue, like say what to do about drunk driving, there will be opposing ideas. I think your way won't work and you think my way won't work. And no one has the right to scream "You people that disagree with me are all just killers.". Because if one side can scream it, then the other side can just scream it. And just because you are the parent of someone who dies because of a drunk driver, that doesn't somehow instantly make your opinion on the subject wiser or smarter. You can't then forcefully disrupt other's opinions, get loud and nasty, call the other side stupid, and then demand a free pass from criticism just because you have more of a connection to the subject.

I myself somewhat feel that George Bush is a killer and a vile person, but more because he keeps the war going when it has failed, rather than for starting it. But even though I think he's scum, I still don't think anyone gets a free pass to push their opinion.

If you want to start a fight and force an unpopular position on people, like "George Bush is a killer.", or "Your religion is just an excuse for bigotry", that's fine. It's OK to push something through sometimes. But you have to expect the payback for pushing the idea.

You're calling the thread dumb but you're essentially agreeing with what I'm saying. No?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're calling the thread dumb but you're essentially agreeing with what I'm saying. No?

You're only right in this instance because you happen to be on the correct side. When you say things like Al Gore is treasonous because he criticized some minor point of the war effort, that's when your fascism comes out.

You do the same thing. You declare your opinion to be so obviously true, important, and purely American that when someone disagrees you call them atni-American, blah, blah, blah. It is the emotional subjects, like whether to fight a war or not, that test a person's understanding of free speech. If you're like "I believe in free speech but in this case it's so obvious the other guy is an America hating traitor" then you don't really have the freedom of speech and opinion thing down.
post #86 of 120
Man Spindler-

Take a deep breath. Everyone seems to be hugging it out .

FYI- I threw out the mother being shouted out of a room as an example because it fit as a great counter example from the other side of SDW's example.

So no political side is better than the other.
post #87 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

You're only right in this instance because you happen to be on the correct side. When you say things like Al Gore is treasonous because he criticized some minor point of the war effort, that's when your fascism comes out.

You do the same thing. You declare your opinion to be so obviously true, important, and purely American that when someone disagrees you call them atni-American, blah, blah, blah. It is the emotional subjects, like whether to fight a war or not, that test a person's understanding of free speech. If you're like "I believe in free speech but in this case it's so obvious the other guy is an America hating traitor" then you don't really have the freedom of speech and opinion thing down.

That's not true at all. I don't take issue with anyone criticizing policy or presenting alternatives. What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

And yes, sometimes I've heard statements that approach treason. I don't think they actually cross the line, but some I've heard are close in my opinion. In any case, I still don't advocate physically preventing someone from speaking, even if I disagree vehmently with what that person is saying...be they liberal or conservative. That's what happening on many college campuses though...the prevention of conservative speech and ideas and the trumpeting of liberal speech and ideas. Many Universities now have speech codes for example that essentially prevent conservative ideas from being expressed. Some require their teaching certificate candidates to sign statements promising they will fight for "social justice and equality." This kind of thing is as wrong as preventing a speaker from giving his opinion.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #88 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #89 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter


OK, I'll play. Do you support the statements I referenced above?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #90 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

OK, I'll play. Do you support the statements I referenced above?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

The only statement there that I find objectionable here is the statement you have incorrectly attributed to Senator Schumer.* It was said by NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. If only he had apologized for it almost immediately after opening his pie-hole, I would feel better.
'
I do not like the idea that we can only attack politicians during certain times. And this business about treason for attacking the president during a time of war is particularly galling, since it doesn't work the other way around. No one was telling conservatives and conservative politicians that they needed to be nice to Democrats during a time of war. They were too busy calling Edwards an ambulance chaser and a jacuzzi lawyer (knowing full well that that defective jacuzzi sucked several FEET of a girl's intestines out) and accusing Kerry of having orchestrated his purple hearts so he could run for president. That is, when they weren't busy insulting everyone who's every won a purple heart:




* Oops. I misread your original post. You did not attribute it to Schumer. Apologies.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #91 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

And yes, sometimes I've heard statements that approach treason. I don't think they actually cross the line, but some I've heard are close in my opinion.

Your opinion conflicts with the weight of the law behind apparently negligible things like the first amendment

-- especially in terms of the extraordinarily difficult-to-meet legal standards concerning public officials. You can barely pursue defamation claims if you're a public official, nevermind treason, a law that's been invoked very rarely. To say that clearly protected speech "approaches treason" has no more validity than saying the contentiousness in my response to you "approaches attempted murder." Not even close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

In any case, I still don't advocate physically preventing someone from speaking, even if I disagree vehmently with what that person is saying...be they liberal or conservative. That's what happening on many college campuses though...the prevention of conservative speech and ideas and the trumpeting of liberal speech and ideas. Many Universities now have speech codes for example that essentially prevent conservative ideas from being expressed. Some require their teaching certificate candidates to sign statements promising they will fight for "social justice and equality." This kind of thing is as wrong as preventing a speaker from giving his opinion.

...heh.

At least you're honest about describing the prohibited speech as "conservative."
post #92 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

If you aren't against physically forbidding these things, then you get at least some credit. But still, if you just casually call someone a traitor because they disagree with your opinion, you are for practical purposes going against basic principles of freedom of opinion.

You say that they someone is doing something "for political gain". Maybe they simply completely disagree with your and Bush's opinion. Proving someone's opinion is solely for political gain is pretty tough.

You say that someone shouldn't call President Bush "braindead" or say that "he betrayed his country" especially in a time of war. Why not? People with power over other people's lives are the most important people to criticize and hold responsible. And there is no *practical* impact on the troops or anyone else for criticizing Bush. The only thing that can be done now is work through the mess. The milk is already spilt. What Bush says on a day to day basis is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

In any case, I still don't advocate physically preventing someone from speaking, even if I disagree vehmently with what that person is saying...be they liberal or conservative.

I'd say that calling someone a traitor or calling them unAmerican is extremely divisive. I think that most people who are against gay marriage are bigots. I mean, the idea that Americans care about decency is a joke. On Desperate Housewives, the new neighbor admitted to being a pedophile. That is part of the plot. Is there going to be a boycott of ABC for showing that? I personally remember when you no one wanted to see that garbage because of the simple principle that children are sacred.

Yet, I don't call the anti-gay crowd "unAmerican", "traitors", blah, blah, blah. I simply point out that there is an American principle that all people are created equal and their opinion appears to fly in the face of it. There's no need to say "I know what the real America is about and you don't." I notice that half of far right people's arguments amount to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's what happening on many college campuses though...the prevention of conservative speech and ideas and the trumpeting of liberal speech and ideas. Many Universities now have speech codes for example that essentially prevent conservative ideas from being expressed. Some require their teaching certificate candidates to sign statements promising they will fight for "social justice and equality." This kind of thing is as wrong as preventing a speaker from giving his opinion.

I'd have to see the specifics of this, though I'm not saying I entirely doubt it. But on these particular boards, I see lots of conservatives using "traitor", "unAmerican", blah, blah, blah, and liberals mostly avoiding that talk and simply pointing out what fundamental rule is being violated.
post #93 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

There you go again.

Yeah, I'm like that. I have this funny thing where I expect thread topics to have something to do with reality and use words with the intention of meaning something like what they actually mean.

But that's just me, and I realize your personal little universe of boundless resentments requires a lot of latitude in the reality department, so carry on.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #94 of 120
That's weird... considering there is so much more serious rationale for treason flying around- ESPECIALLY in the time of war coming straight out of the president. you worry about free speech? How about dead soldiers? How about experienced soldiers now in government being silenced?

I've never seen anything this poorly planned, and flip flopped and full of shit as this war.

This war is no reason, excuse, or any other justification for any political party or affiliation to stand beside.

How are you not beside yourself with this shit if you are so worried about war time etiquette, troops, or your country?

Amazing...

This war time argument only serves to affirm that the only treason is being perpetrated on all of us- and especially you. When I see someone as intelligent as yourself finding a way to justify current events as it applies to this war makes me realize how damaged our country is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's not true at all. I don't take issue with anyone criticizing policy or presenting alternatives. What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

And yes, sometimes I've heard statements that approach treason. I don't think they actually cross the line, but some I've heard are close in my opinion. In any case, I still don't advocate physically preventing someone from speaking, even if I disagree vehmently with what that person is saying...be they liberal or conservative. That's what happening on many college campuses though...the prevention of conservative speech and ideas and the trumpeting of liberal speech and ideas. Many Universities now have speech codes for example that essentially prevent conservative ideas from being expressed. Some require their teaching certificate candidates to sign statements promising they will fight for "social justice and equality." This kind of thing is as wrong as preventing a speaker from giving his opinion.
post #95 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're kidding, right? Incidents like this have been widespread. By "like this" I mean the physical disruption of conservative speech. Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?



Considering that most institutions of higher education ARE liberal arts colleges, what's your point EXACTLY?

Yes, I get it, we need "fair and balanced" higher education, we need EXACTLY a one-to-one conservative arts college to liberal arts college ratio. TFTFY!

We must educate our citizens so that EXACTLY 50% are regressive thinkers and 50% are progressive thinkers!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #96 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.



Given EITHER of those two definitions, then the term that SDW titled this thread with, "Liberal Facism" is, by definition, categorically FALSE!

If they broke the law, throw da bums out, I say, otherwise shutup already!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

The only statement there that I find objectionable here is the statement you have incorrectly attributed to Senator Schumer.* It was said by NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. If only he had apologized for it almost immediately after opening his pie-hole, I would feel better.
'
I do not like the idea that we can only attack politicians during certain times. And this business about treason for attacking the president during a time of war is particularly galling, since it doesn't work the other way around. No one was telling conservatives and conservative politicians that they needed to be nice to Democrats during a time of war. They were too busy calling Edwards an ambulance chaser and a jacuzzi lawyer (knowing full well that that defective jacuzzi sucked several FEET of a girl's intestines out) and accusing Kerry of having orchestrated his purple hearts so he could run for president. That is, when they weren't busy insulting everyone who's every won a purple heart:




* Oops. I misread your original post. You did not attribute it to Schumer. Apologies.

1. I never attributed the statement to Schumer, that's correct. Thanks for the edit.

2. I disagree that we should slander the POTUS and his administration in a time of war, by calling them liars, murderers, stupid, etc. Criticizing policy is one thing. Those kind of statements are another.

3. Show me one example of Republican politicians' statements that approach the level of vitriol Democrats have used. One.

4. You're changing the subject. No one is talking about a political campaign. Secondly, can you show me that the Bush/Cheney campaign or leading Republicans made those kind of attacks...jacuzzi laywer and what not? No. In any case, there is a big difference between negative poltical campaigning and lobbing hate speech at a sitting admin.

5. Again, did Bush talk about that? Did his campaign? Also, can you explain Kerry reenacting his service in Vietnam for the cameras? Can you explain how so many of his fellow soldiers condemned him? Or that he was deployed for what....3 months? Or that he listed a medal on his website (the "Silver Star with Combat V") that didn't exist? Kerry used his military service first to give his radical anti-war views credibility while lying about his comrades, and then...to bolster his political futures. Go ahead...deny it.

6. Isn't it interesting how you liberals always have to include some kind of sob story (this time with the jacuzzi case) to get your point across. It's a tried and true tactic...use victims to bolster your argument and they themsleves cannot be attacked. Your use of that example is nothing but gratuitous. It certainly isn't relevent to the discussion at hand.


If I'm reading you right, you think that not only should it be legal to savage the POTUS and his administration during time of war (which we agree on), but that it's actually a good idea and that it's perfectly acceptable and appropriate. Do I have that right?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #98 of 120
Quote:
3. Show me one example of Republican politicians' statements that approach the level of vitriol Democrats have used. One.

Here's one calling those democrats/who disagree with the adminstation nazi sympathizers:

"It's not an insult to compare Bush administration critics to those who enabled Hitler" - Newt
post #99 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorMatt

Here's one calling those democrats/who disagree with the adminstation nazi sympathizers:

"It's not an insult to compare Bush administration critics to those who enabled Hitler" - Newt

I'd like documentation of that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #100 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'd like documentation of that.

Choose your poison:
http://www.google.com/search?q=It%27...ient=firefox-a

After a quick glance, they look like blogs.
post #101 of 120
From the transcript of Newt's appearance on Hannity and Colmes, as posted on Media Matters

He's actually talking about approving of remarks made by Rumsfeld, so it's a twofer:

Quote:
COLMES: We were just talking about [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA] and what she wants to do in this effort to perhaps get Rumsfeld removed. He recently made some very controversial comments, basically suggesting that critics of the Iraq war are tantamount to Hitler's appeasers. Do you agree with him on those comments?

GINGRICH: Essentially, sure. I mean, I think you've got to say that --

COLMES: You're calling appeasers people who disagree with the Bush policy administration --

GINGRICH: Look --

COLMES: -- comparing them to those who enabled Hitler?

GINGRICH: Yes.

COLMES: That's an astounding comment --

GINGRICH: GINGRICH: What's your -- what's your -- why? Why is it astounding?

COLMES: -- that's a very insulting comment --

GINGRICH: It's not an insulting comment.

The video is posted as well, so no one need get exercised about the lying liberal Media Matters.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #102 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

From the transcript of Newt's appearance on Hannity and Colmes, as posted on Media Matters

He's actually talking about approving of remarks made by Rumsfeld, so it's a twofer:



The video is posted as well, so no one need get exercised about the lying liberal Media Matters.

Every American should condemn these statements made by Gingrich.

Do we really want to just give up our liberties because some politician says it is good for us?

Do we really have to be told we are like those who enable Hitler if we disagree with their war?

For me the answer is NO.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #103 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

From the transcript of Newt's appearance on Hannity and Colmes, as posted on Media Matters

He's actually talking about approving of remarks made by Rumsfeld, so it's a twofer:



The video is posted as well, so no one need get exercised about the lying liberal Media Matters.

OK, thanks for that. I disagree with him on that statement. I don't think it approaches the level of criticism and attacks from the other side though, especially in total.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #104 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship

Every American should condemn these statements made by Gingrich.

Do we really want to just give up our liberties because some politician says it is good for us?

Do we really have to be told we are like those who enable Hitler if we disagree with their war?

For me the answer is NO.

Fellowship

Oh, I see..it's "their war." Those damn neocon fascists!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #105 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Right on=someting you agree with.

Crazy=something you disagree with.

Yes. That about sums it up.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #106 of 120
Actually, there's nothing wrong at all with saying "It's not an insult to compare Bush administration critics to those who enabled Hitler", and I completely disagree with the staement.

The quote sounds dramatic, because he mentions Hitler. But Newt Gingrich is simply saying that there is a lot on the line. If we stand by allow and evil people to gain power, there will be more problems later. While I personally disagree with the statement, and think it it kooky all or nothing thinking, there's nothing wrong with saying "There's an absolutely tremendous amount on the line, and those who don't take the correct route are making a grave mistake."

Newt Gingrich is is no way in that statement saying anti-war people sympathize with terrorists, hope they win, are anti-American, aren't willing to sacrifice for their country, or anything else along those lines. He is simply saying they are taking the wrong strategic path when dealing with an enemy.

Let's say a liberal made the following completely true statement: "Any person who is against birth control allows more people who aren't ready to be parents to have kids. And that means an increase in children being emotionally and physically abused and more children raised by parents that don't love them." Now that's obviously completely true. You take a person who isn't going to be a great parent in ideal circumstances and you make them a parent when they are struggling in life and that means more neglect and abuse. But that doesn't mean people against birth control WANT more children to suffer or be born to parents that don't love them.

Saying "Liberals don't care whether American is overrun by terrorists!" is a sick statement. Saying "Liberals are taking the strategic path that would allow terorists to gain enough power to use nuclear weapons against the U.S." is simply a statement that may be true or may be false.
post #107 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh, I see..it's "their war." Those damn neocon fascists!

Yes. That about sums it up.
post #108 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh, I see..it's "their war." Those damn neocon fascists!

Well, I don't know that the neocons are fascists. They're certainly elitists, which I guess could play into elements of fascism, though.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #109 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Yes. That about sums it up.

Regardless, Saddam, or no Saddam, we have Taliban, Sudan, Iran, etc., and a potent minority of Jihadis who believe they are at, or very near, metaphorically speaking, their Medina stage of existence. Some new direction, policy whatever needs to be brought forward. We are at the 'do something, even if it's wrong' stage, and it's turning disastrous.


...as Benjamin Franklin said -- We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #110 of 120


Democrats don't believe they're suggesting "doing the wrong thing."
post #111 of 120
Quote:
We are at the 'do something, even if it's wrong' stage, and it's turning disastrous.

You should have been saying that in the months just before we invaded Iraq.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #112 of 120
The article was about protestors. SDW made up the part about liberals and fascists. As for Iraq, the United States has no right to occupy Iraq. If George Custer Bush believed in democracy he would find out just what the Iraq people want to do with the United States and its three-and-a-half-year demonstration of modern methods of western democracy, a la Israel's daily murder of suspicious suspects and other civilians in Death Camp Gaza. Get a grip: Israel's answer to Little 'Dolf is showing up in the United States and Clinton, Pelosi and the usual guys from across the aisle will be there to kiss ass.
post #113 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunocrat

The article was about protestors. SDW made up the part about liberals and fascists. As for Iraq, the United States has no right to occupy Iraq. If George Custer Bush believed in democracy he would find out just what the Iraq people want to do with the United States and its three-and-a-half-year demonstration of modern methods of western democracy, a la Israel's daily murder of suspicious suspects and other civilians in Death Camp Gaza. Get a grip: Israel's answer to Little 'Dolf is showing up in the United States and Clinton, Pelosi and the usual guys from across the aisle will be there to kiss ass.

Could you possibly cover one more topic in a single paragraph? Thanks.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #114 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunocrat

The article was about protestors. SDW made up the part about liberals and fascists. As for Iraq, the United States has no right to occupy Iraq. If George Custer Bush believed in democracy he would find out just what the Iraq people want to do with the United States and its three-and-a-half-year demonstration of modern methods of western democracy, a la Israel's daily murder of suspicious suspects and other civilians in Death Camp Gaza. Get a grip: Israel's answer to Little 'Dolf is showing up in the United States and Clinton, Pelosi and the usual guys from across the aisle will be there to kiss ass.

Please learn how to write posts in a coherent, sensible manner.
post #115 of 120
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #116 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt

Uh, except no one is saying that. Criticism of policy or even personal approach is fine. The problem comes when the criticism is disingenous and deterimental to a war effort. It's perfectly legal and I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be. It's just in bad taste and is a bad idea.
There's no reason to call a sitting President "brain dead" or "stupid" or to talk about how we can't win in Iraq even. We're there, and now we have to secure the country in the least. The criticism and debate should be abotu how to do that. It shouldn't focus on calling the administration a bunch of liars. That does nothing to help the here and now, nor the future. It is, however, often politically expediant.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #117 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Uh, except no one is saying that. Criticism of policy or even personal approach is fine. The problem comes when the criticism is disingenous and deterimental to a war effort. It's perfectly legal and I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be. It's just in bad taste and is a bad idea.
There's no reason to call a sitting President "brain dead" or "stupid" or to talk about how we can't win in Iraq even. We're there, and now we have to secure the country in the least. The criticism and debate should be abotu how to do that. It shouldn't focus on calling the administration a bunch of liars. That does nothing to help the here and now, nor the future. It is, however, often politically expediant.

There is no way to win over there, or secure the country, short of total anhialation of the extremists, and that will never happen. So I suppose we will be stuck over there for 50 years as the Britsh were during the first half of the 20th century. I don't think the USA should be trying force democracy on a part of the world that doesn't want it.
Even if we were able secure a democratic government in Iraq, as soon as we are gone they will be right back to killing each other.
Look back through history. Those Muslim tribes not only hate the infidels, they hate each other.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #118 of 120
ronaldo - you left out "Bush is brain dead and stupid"!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #119 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker

ronaldo - you left out "Bush is brain dead and stupid"!

Oh yes. I forgot that.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #120 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo

There is no way to win over there, or secure the country, short of total anhialation of the extremists, and that will never happen. So I suppose we will be stuck over there for 50 years as the Britsh were during the first half of the 20th century. I don't think the USA should be trying force democracy on a part of the world that doesn't want it.
Even if we were able secure a democratic government in Iraq, as soon as we are gone they will be right back to killing each other.
Look back through history. Those Muslim tribes not only hate the infidels, they hate each other.

Well that's one viewpoint, I suppose.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Fascism