General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

Tell us again about coherent, non-binary, non-demonizing definitions of
"conservative" or of "liberal". Responses of I'm an XXX and everyone who
disagrees with me is a YYY are not responsive.

For extra credit, reconcile your above statement with the ideas of
Jeremy Bentham.

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

Tell us again about coherent, non-binary, non-demonizing definitions of
"conservative" or of "liberal".

I'd rather just use the self-applied labels that many politicians and
their supporters use. Most of the folks who call themselves "liberals"
or are called that by their friends are, when you get right down to it,
not very "liberal" at all outside of a few, narrowly-defined opinions.
An old-time "liberal" would have been right in the forefront when
sending troops to fight a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein, while
the modern breed is quite content to leave them be.

But you're right: when you get right down to it, "liberal" and
"conservative" have become effectively meaningless when referring to the
Democrat/Republican divide. You can get bizarre commonalities between
people like Jeremy Rifkin and Pat Buchanan, for example, who have very
similar opinions on much of the economy and foreign trade, but have some
sharp discontinuities on many other social beliefs.

Responses of I'm an XXX and everyone who
disagrees with me is a YYY are not responsive.

Neither is "define something for me and I'll nitpick it for a couple of
days."

For extra credit, reconcile your above statement with the ideas of
Jeremy Bentham.

So how many graduate-level credits do I get for it, who's doing the
grading, and what are their credentials?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

I got a degree from University College London, and have seen Jeremy
Bentham's preserved body (he sits in one of the hallways, and is a
required presence at meetings of the governing body).

I'm not sure that you mean by "liberal" what many other people
understand by "liberal".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

I got a degree from University College London, and have seen Jeremy
Bentham's preserved body (he sits in one of the hallways, and is a
required presence at meetings of the governing body).

I'm not sure that you mean by "liberal" what many other people
understand by "liberal".

And I'm quite certain of the same for you.

As far as that goes, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the modern
political scene who would even accept Bentham's utilitarianism as
"liberal" in the modern sense. Look at the current "liberal" view that
the community has rights over the individual, for example...

Of course, the sort of people who would keep a 150 year old preserved
skeleton around would be considered something like "traditionalists" or
"reactionaries" nowadays, since many of Bentham's ideas have been
accepted in some form or another.

Political terms tend to shift over time. Look at what happened to the
names of political parties in the US, for example.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure that you mean by "liberal" what many other people
understand by "liberal".


When people in the US use the term "liberal" today they're referring to
modern liberalism. Essentially, a large central government that controls
every aspect of life in America.

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?


Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.



I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.


Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination.

"Robey Price" wrote in message
.. .

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?


Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.


I think I will have to chime in on Stevens side here.

Sure liberals like freedom at home, but to some of us, freedom is not just
something for domestic consumption, but something that everyone deserves, no
matter what their country. Its not just something you are glad you have, but
lament the fact that others in the world do not have it, while having your wine
and cheese.

The American and Euro leftists were content, even at times even happy with
conditions in countries such as the USSR and its enslaved Baltic and Eastern
European countries, Cuba, Nicaragua. People like Marx, Lenin, Ortega and Castro
were and have been darlings of the USA leftists for that matter. Look at the
ongoing love affair between Hollywood leftists (redunant) and Castro.

The left and liberals were thought it was foolish to confront the USSR, and
just plain stupid to have such folly ideas as rolling back Communist/Marxist
totalitarian states in the world. Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every
Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR. He certainly ran quickly to
make friends with Ortega in the mid 80s. The American and Euro leftists even
ridiculed Reagan for daring Gorby to tear down the wall, and thought it just
was indicative of their pointy headed intellectual views of him being a
simpleton. The left has not just opposed efforts give other states freedom,
but often actively tried to support those states.

No political party or person has a perfect record in these matters. But when
it comes to trying to help countries that were under totalitarian or marxist
rule, the American and Euro left has a pretty abyssmal record.






Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
confessed the following:

I think I will have to chime in on Stevens side here.

Okey dokey...

Sure liberals like freedom at home, but to some of us, freedom is not just
something for domestic consumption, but something that everyone deserves, no
matter what their country. Its not just something you are glad you have, but
lament the fact that others in the world do not have it, while having your wine
and cheese.

Ture...in the ideal world every citizen is free. The problem is the
world is not simply black & white, yes or no. Today we're tied down in
Iraq trying provide those blessings of freedom. And hopefully in the
long run things will work out for those folks.

Sincerely how do you reconcile your desire for freedom for Iraqi
citizens now and 20 years ago when Rumsfeld went to Iraq and met with
Saddam Hussein and gave him the blessing and backing of the US gov't
(but not getting too pushy about chem warfare vs the Kurds or
Iranians)? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm
The Iranians had released the American hostages when Reagan took
office...why not be consistant? My answer? **** happens.

And where do you draw the line at which countries will benefit from
our liberating their people? Do we go into Iran next? Syria? Saudi
Arabia (and kill all those wahabi islamist ****s)?

Then on to North Korea...and the PRC. Do you think Vietnam needs to be
liberated now? We spent a whole lot of money and got a whole lot of
guys killed, and by all appearances Vietnam is a pretty peaceful place
these days (and the citizens are happy and like Americans).

The American and Euro leftists were content, even at times even happy with
conditions in countries such as the USSR and its enslaved Baltic and Eastern
European countries, Cuba, Nicaragua. People like Marx, Lenin, Ortega and Castro
were and have been darlings of the USA leftists for that matter. Look at the
ongoing love affair between Hollywood leftists (redunant) and Castro.

I have no answer for that...I can't think of any US liberal leaders
(politicians) that were ever happy about the conditions on the
otherside of the Iron Curtain. Try to use Tom Hayden

The left and liberals were thought it was foolish to confront the USSR, and
just plain stupid to have such folly ideas as rolling back Communist/Marxist
totalitarian states in the world.

As a blanket statement that is incorrect. I strapped my ass to a jet
ready to "kill a commie for christ" (so to speak) and never once
thought it was foolish to defend western europe against the WP, or
defend the RoK against Kim Il-Sung (that ****).

Sincerely, without meaning to sound insulting...looking at the war in
SEA with all the secrecy (the war in Laos, the bombing of Cambodia)
and tell me what it accomplished in terms of spreading freedom?
Personally I think liberals object to the secrecy aspect..and de facto
lying about motives...and many are simply morally opposed to war.

Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every
Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR.

Not a Kerry scholar...help me out here. How many, or simply what were
the specifics. Surely you recognize that blanket statements don't make
it so.

No political party or person has a perfect record in these matters.

No argument from me. I don't think Iran-Contra was Reagan's finest
moment in office, but he was successful (unless you think more in
terms of the huge federal deficit at the end of his 2d term). And
before anybody howls in protest...Reagan was the MAN, he was at the
helm when the wall came down. May he rest in peace.

But when
it comes to trying to help countries that were under totalitarian or marxist
rule, the American and Euro left has a pretty abyssmal record.

Hmmm, Truman defending the RoK (along with our UN friends) against
those godless ****s north of the 38th parallel, JFK facing down the
soviets over Berlin, JFK facing down the soviets over IRBMs in Cuba,
LBJ sending more troops to SEA because of the (bogus 2d attack) Gulf
of Tonkin...OK you got me there.

I notice you write "totalitarian or marxist rule," are other form of
non-democratic government acceptable? King Hussein of Jordan, the
House of Saud? Where do you personally draw the line? Over the years
the US has supported folks with names like Batista, Boun Oum, Chiang
Kai Shek, Franco, Salazar, Ngo Diem, Trujillo, the Somozas,
Verwoerd, Ydigoras. Paticipatory democracy (which I think you're
addressing) was not a hallmark of these clients.

I appreciate the debate.

Robey

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:

Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.

Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote,
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of
"separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay
rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial
polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see
Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government
says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so.

These are all good things in my book.

Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.


Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination.

sincerely...give it your best shot...feel free to use multi-syllabic
words and compound complex sentences.

Let the games begin!

Robey

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote,
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of
"separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay
rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial
polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see
Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government
says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so.

These are all good things in my book.


You're confusing classic liberalism with modern liberalism. When people
speak of liberals or liberalism today they're referring to modern
liberalism.



Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.


Medicare, Social Security, minimum wage laws, national health care, welfare,
race-based quotas, income redistribution, etc., etc., etc.