|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
June 8th 04, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 
|
|
#2
June 8th 04, 05:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
|
|
#3
June 8th 04, 06:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#5
June 8th 04, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
confessed the following: Well Iran was still on our **** list, and they were the biggest threat at that time in the Middle East. Iraq had not taken out hostages, and was not trying to spread Islamic Revolution around, and in fact they were opposed to it also. Iraq's was a secular regime to be sure. If they had been anywhere else in the world besides next to Iran, circumstances would have been different. Hussien has had collossially bad strategic judgement, and if he had not gassed the Kurds, or invaded Iraq, or pursued nuclear programs, he would still be in power, and Iraq would not have been the pariah it was most likely. This probably doesn't seem like much to you, but do you realize that you did NOT mention anything about Iraq's ties to supporting al-Qaeda? Unless of course you are like most liberals that don't see one, never saw one...and certainly don't deny they're now in Iraq killing our kids (thanks to porous borders and ethnic camoflage). Ponder for a moment that if we invaded Iraq to keep WMD away from terrorist (and recalling how terrorists have flooded into Iraq in the last year) where are the WMD? If we have not found the stockpiles after searching over a year, does this mean the islamist ****s have them now? And if they do...then a major reason for invading Iraq was for **** (since the islamist ****s might have the WMD anyway at this point). But I digress. Yes I think we can all agree those countries should be free. Iraq is enough of a problem right now without having to worry about others. Going into others too would guarantree failure for all of them. We can still promote freedom in those countries however without military action. That last sentence is exactly what I would say...and me the liberal. Yes we should promote efforts to change, and I think Vietnam is probably along that path as it is, although has a ways to go. Cool, so we can agree that there is no need for military force, yes? DPRK, well that is another darling of the really far left groups. Ron that simply is not true. I think you keep using a sliding scale (so to speak) of the political spectrum. Leftists...liberals...really far left. Name one American politician that thinks the DPRK is a good thing? Well the ones who may have not been happy, sure were content, based on their displeasure for anyone who actually dared to want to roll back the Iron Curtain. Look at how much leftists despised Reagan and the free markets economists for daring to think the USSR could be defeated economically. They all just wanted the USSR tolerated, and maybe contained. To be fair, I would characterize our economic defeat of the USSR as a great example of containment. The opposite of containment is military warfare. Containment worked, we were not out "nation building," we were protecting our european allies. Well it sure wasnt a real effort unfortunately, and some here know all too well. While I would not call Johnson a leftist, Vietnam certainly was not an effort to win. OK, I'd say that if the effort had gotten any more "real" the nice folks in the PRC may have decided to roll south like they did in Korea. Would it surprise you that Ho Chi Minh and his band of nationalist communists attempted to get Truman to persuade the French not to come back to reclaim their colony after WWII? Perhaps...perhaps we might have spared a great deal of blood and treasure if Truman had put the strong arm on De Gualle. Yes he wanted to cancel the Peacekeeper ICBM, SDI (which many Soviets think was the last straw in their economic defeat), B-1B, AH-64, Aegis cruisers, Patriot SAM, AV-8B, F-14, AIM-54 and AIM-7... Assuming this is all true...and looked at another way...1980's Kerry could simply be opposed to increased military spending at the expense of domestic/social programs. Reagan made great tax cuts (that everybody remembers) but they all seem to forget that taxes were raised by the second term and the federal deficit was absolutely huge when he left office. My first mortgage in 1984 had a 13% interest rate. I see an enormous haughtiness in the United States trying to tell them what to do, Kerry, in regards to the Sandinista Government. OK...in the long run things have worked out (Contra victory) without an invasion by the US. Perhaps the haughtiness was the end-run around congress, and what was the reason for dealing with the islamist ****s in Iran (the same SOBs that had taken our fellow americans hostages to begin with)? Don't you think it's kinda ****ed up to be in a secret deal with assholes that held our embassy folks hostage...think back to how you felt about Iran in 1979, not at this moment reflecting on Reagan's legacy. I dont think the US really had a real leftist movement equivalent to modern liberals, outside of Hollywood and Academia, until the mid-late 60s. If you're interested...give this a shot, Tom Hayden and the Port Huron Statement from 1962. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...nts/huron.html You cant call Truman, JFK, LBJ lefties or even liberal. They would have nothing in common with the left wing of today. Again you're using a slippery scale. LBJ and his "Great Society" was mo' debly liberal. I think all of those guys would embrace the Democratic party of today. Yes, and in hindsight we can see more now, and sometimes in our zeal to face down communism, we allied ourselves with someone who wasnt really any better. And this is exactly the moral dilemma...and it is a moral dilemma that many liberal friends argue. We propped up dictatorships during the fight against communism, why is it now a requirement to go pro-active now? Answer? Because we're the 800 pound gorilla. I would argue that it was not necessary to invade Iraq; I would argue for containment (not appeasement). Our govenment has gone over the cliff claiming we're promoting democracy and the rule of law...but there is now evidence of this according to the WSJ. To me this indicates the Abu Ghraib prisoner stink goes much higher than the Brigade level (as Ed might think). [quote] Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued by Jess Bravin Monday, June 7, 2004 Wall Street Journal Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department. The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners. The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013. The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply. ...[unquote] Go here for a link to the whole article http://www.intel-dump.com/ see the Monday 7 June entry. If this is true...I find it scary and against everything I think democracy is about. But I still believe that leftist movements were against promoting freedom in the communist countries during the 80, based on their word of ridicule, their actions to promote some of those same countries, and their demonstrations that only served to help the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. Fair enough...we'll agree to disagree. I don't think anti-nuclear war demonstrations were de facto anti-democracy rallies. That is too simplistic. Demonstrating against Reagan's Iran-Contra affair (secret deals with a terrorist enemy via an end-run around our participatory democracy) is not exactly what democracy is about. As a liberal, I will say that the ends don't always justify the means. Setting a good example is just as important. If you're for democracy then support the mechanisms of our democracy...namely public scrutiny...and not torturing prisoners. Again thanks for the excellent discussion...Honest! Robey
|
|
#6
June 8th 04, 05:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#7
June 8th 04, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.
|
|
#8
June 8th 04, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following: You're confusing classic liberalism with modern liberalism. When people speak of liberals or liberalism today they're referring to modern liberalism. Simply trying to pin you down on your definition. 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. Hmmm, Social Security is about controlling people? Minimum wages are about controlling people? Universal health care is about controlling people? Affirmative action...raced based quotas...got it. The only bit of information that would complete my picture of you would be for you to tell us, "I'm a god fearing christian...a compassionate conservative." I can't think of a single person that is getting rich off social security. Folks living on the minimum wage are working multiple ****ty paying jobs. Yeah those minimum wage workers love how they control your life. Health care...sister in law now in her 5th (and final more than likely) year of fighting cancer, her teenage son with Down syndrome, her husband with life threatening neurological disorder (his dad is dying from it right now)...anyway, her meds cost $500+ and health insurance premiums cost $700 per month. This ain't just some faceless statistic to me...it's family. Yeah she's controlling your life... Income redistribution? Progressive income tax anybody? Got *any* idea about the size of the tax burden on your grand children ( going forward) to pay for the invasion and subsequent "nation building" exercise? Don't blame liberals for this expense...suck it up and boast about it. YMMV
|
|
#9
June 8th 04, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robey Price" wrote in message
... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven P. McNicoll" confessed the following: Got *any* idea about the size of the tax burden on your grand children ( going forward) to pay for the invasion and subsequent "nation building" exercise? Don't blame liberals for this expense...suck it up and boast about it. YMMV I'm not sure why you think the tax burden from the most recent war is so bad. Debt as a percentage of GNP has be higher in the past yet the US managed pretty well. Jarg
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
| General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
| General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
| Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
| USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Hybrid Mode
