One against many Originally Posted by pjorourkePJ, keep drinkin' the tainted Kool Aid.
We all know that Faux has now become one among the many?
- Guest040616
- 01-09-2011, 08:16 PM
We all know that Faux has now become one among the many?
- discreetgent
- 01-09-2011, 08:21 PM
- Guest040616
- 01-09-2011, 08:23 PM
- pjorourke
- 01-09-2011, 08:35 PM
DG, 
U
U
- discreetgent
- 01-09-2011, 08:37 PM
- I B Hankering
- 01-09-2011, 08:41 PM
I do think, emotionally, however, that Americans (even you, IBH) are somewhat more trustful of conservatives/Republicans. For years, conservatives/Republicans have equated Democrats or "bleeding heart" liberals to socialists (note JB's epithets about Obama) or Communists as a way of persuading the American public to distrust Democrats. I gotta ask, Why would the most powerful person in the world (a Democrat President) "sell out" the country to a foreign nation? It's ridiculous. He'd be usurping his own power. In any event, if you throw enough mud, some sticks. And since this country has for decades been scared of the "red menace," any accusation that a Democrat is a "socialist" strikes fear in the hearts of Americans, whether or not the accusation is true. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005I have no problem with the pendulum metaphor, and I thought about using it. Sometimes, however, the idea of a sailing ship stalling and making sternway as it heads directly into the wind—with the sails luffing as it jibes—really serves as an appropriate metaphor for certain administrations. LOL
I think I listened to the same NPR broadcast. Something like 51% of Americans are for repealing the law or some part of it, another 21% support it as it is; while, another 20% want it to go further. The rest have no opinion. That was the basis for one of my earlier posts to “. .”. I, and four other people out of 10, are against the current law; we are the “norm” and not the “abnormal.”
Actually, my problem with Democrats really stems from other issues, particularly gun control and defense. Wilson backed the U.S. unprepared into WWI. FDR backed the U.S. unprepared into WWII. Truman wasn’t ready for Korea, and Johnson certainly screwed things up in Vietnam. Carter was an embarrassment throughout the Iran hostage situation, and then came Clinton.
“In the 1990s, out of an abundance of caution, the Clinton administration failed to act effectively against Osama bin Laden and the growing danger of al Qaeda. The CIA and the military’s Special Operations forces offered proposals for capturing or killing bin Laden and his senior lieutenants, but the risk-averse White House rejected them.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WORDS=Max+Boot When Bush was sworn in 2001, bin Laden’s operatives were already in the U.S., and 9/11 came just a short eight months after Clinton left office.
Some people think about wars in terms of dollars and cents, but I think of them in terms of the human costs. What is the value of an American soldier’s life when balanced against the cost of a functional protective vest or a properly armored vehicle? An American serviceman, with all of the U.S.’s advanced technology, should never be asked to step onto a battlefield and engage the enemy in a “fair fight.”
Then Obama comes along and ashamedly apologizes to foreign governments and potentates for past actions taken by the U.S. without regard for the ultimate sacrifice made by thousands of men and women who fought for this country. Obama promised everyone that things would be “hunky dory” once the “bad” Mr. Bush left office. Today we are closer to a hot war with North Korea than we’ve been in 50 years. Iran is just a few months away from having a deployable nuclear weapon, and Chavez has established himself as a dictator in Venezuela. I’m not saying it would have been any different if McCain had been elected, but I do not recall McCain ever making such dishonest promises. JMO.
- pjorourke
- 01-09-2011, 08:47 PM
- discreetgent
- 01-09-2011, 08:55 PM
IB: since you were talking about wars, how did you miss GWB and Afghanistan (which we had to go into but he fucked up) and then the Iraq debacle?
- I B Hankering
- 01-09-2011, 08:59 PM
- Rudyard K
- 01-09-2011, 09:02 PM
Violence on either side is just wrong, but if we are going down this path then I posit that when there is such violence it tends to come far more from those espousing extreme conservative views than extreme liberal ones. I mean no one has ever shot a doctor who chose not to perform abortions. Unabomber is the one real exception I can think of. Originally Posted by discreetgentI guess it depends on how you define violence. For instance, all the aborted children might tend to differ with your posit.
- discreetgent
- 01-09-2011, 09:09 PM
Yay!!!! I got RK to post 
OK: how about blowing up a building in revenge for Waco?
OK: how about blowing up a building in revenge for Waco?
- discreetgent
- 01-09-2011, 09:10 PM
- I B Hankering
- 01-09-2011, 09:11 PM
Violence on either side is just wrong, but if we are going down this path then I posit that when there is such violence it tends to come far more from those espousing extreme conservative views than extreme liberal ones. I mean no one has ever shot a doctor who chose not to perform abortions. Unabomber is the one real exception I can think of. Originally Posted by discreetgentThe Black Panthers, the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army all come to mind. Plus, James J. Lee’s armed attack against the Discovery Channel last September was motivated by Al Gore’s rhetoric.
- discreetgent
- 01-09-2011, 09:14 PM
Plus, James J. Lee’s armed attack against the Discovery Channel last September was motivated by Al Gore’s rhetoric. Originally Posted by I B HankeringYou know this may be the one and only time that Al Gore inspired (wrong connotation but I can't find the right word) anyone in any way.
Add in: Red Brigade, etc
- I B Hankering
- 01-09-2011, 09:14 PM