A "LIBERAL MANIFESTO" AND OTHER HALLOWEEN FRIGHTS
By Rick Moran Posted in Liberals | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (64) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Over at The American Prospect, they decided to get a head start on scaring the public half to death this Halloween season by publishing a "Liberal Manifesto" which carefully lays out what the authors believe all good liberals should stand for.
This kind of earnestness on the part of the left is something we've grown used to over the years. In fact, it is a defining characteristic of modern liberalism, this cloying self righteousness. It fits in with their constant need to avoid introspection by formulating intellectual conceits based on a heroic self-image, standing up against the villainy of the opposition with only the lantern of truth and a pen to battle evil. Creating a "moral" universe that has about as much foundation as a pool of quicksand, liberals who are constantly defining and redefining themselves fail to see the monumental irony in their efforts to simplify their riot of conceits into any kind of logical or coherent set of principles.
Read on . . .
Give the boys at American Prospect credit for trying. However, in the process of trying to be politically reasonable - for example; with regard to the use of force - the authors reveal where the emotional underpinnings of Bush Derangement Syndrome originates as well as a truly frightening glimpse into a future where foreign policy is run by the left:
Make no mistake: We believe that the use of force can, at times, be justified. We supported the use of American force, together with our allies, in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. But war must remain a last resort. The Bush administration's emphatic reliance on military intervention is illegitimate and counterproductive. It creates unnecessary enemies, degrades the national defense, distracts from actual dangers, and ignores the imperative necessity of building an international order that peacefully addresses the aspirations of rising powers in Asia and Latin America.
The misapplication of military power also imperils American freedom at home. The president claims authority, as commander in chief, to throw American citizens into military prison for years on end without any hearing, civil or military, that would allow them to confront the charges against them. He claims the power to wiretap Americans' conversations without warrants, in direct violation of congressional commands. These usurpation's presage what are likely to be even more drastic measures if another attack takes place on American soil.
"Unnecessary enemies?" Name one nation pre-Iraq War who wasn't an enemy and who now sports an undying hatred of the United States as a result of our intervention?
The blindness necessary to posit the notion that America's enemies have changed in the last decade, much less the last five years is Exhibit 1 in the case against liberal control of foreign policy. After all, the mullahs wanted to talk to us in 2003 and we spurned them! Gotta be the Iraq War that made Ahmadinejad call for our destruction. The fact that one of the most consistent policy pronouncements out of the Iranians since the 1979 revolution has been statements supporting the destruction of Israel and the United States doesn't seem to have made much of a dent in the thought processes of even these liberal "hawks."
And please note the inclusion of Bosnia and Kosovo in places liberals are willing to use force - two interventions where no US interests were involved, that the United Nations did not sanction the use of force, and where conservative Republicans made up President Clinton's most vocal supporters.
It is this kind of myopia that shows itself throughout this Manifesto. Witness very carefully what these "sane" liberals believe:
We reaffirm the great principle of liberalism: that every citizen is entitled by right to the elementary means to a good life. We believe passionately that societies should afford their citizens equal treatment under the law -- regardless of accidents of birth, race, sex, property, religion, ethnic identification, or sexual disposition. We want to redirect debate to the central questions of concern to ordinary Americans -- their rights to housing, affordable health care, equal opportunity for employment, and fair wages, as well as physical security and a sustainable environment for ourselves and future generations.
Instead of securing these principles, the president and his party view the suppression of votes indulgently and propose new requirements for voting that will make it still harder for the poor and the elderly to exercise their democratic rights.
Absolutely fascinating. After an obligatory nod to constitutional protections, the "central questions" of concern to ordinary voters may very well be what liberals believe they are. What should scare the bejeebees out of these same voters is how our friends on the left plan on accomplishing these feats of legislative legerdemain in order to bring about our liberal utopia.
What is a "fair" wage? Who decides? Is there really a "right" to housing? Maybe I was asleep in civics class when that part of the Constitution was discussed. And we've already seen the inventive ways that liberals define "equal opportunity" for employment. By taking a necessary function of the national government - protecting minorities from discrimination - and turning it into a weapon used at the beck and call of the special pleaders in the so-called civil rights movement, liberals have made criminals of companies whose only transgression is that they got in the cross hairs of groups like the NAACP, PUSH, or other legalized extortion outfits.
But it is in their not well concealed hatred of the President and their ideological opponents that we see where the intellectual underpinnings of Bush Derangement Syndrome originates. To actually believe that both political parties don't do their damnedest to suppress the opposition's vote is either the height of naivete or delusional thinking. I daresay the massive, coordinated campaign in the press over the last several weeks designed to discourage Republicans (especially religious conservatives) from voting gives the lie to any attempt to assign blame for quashing votes to one side only.
And to further believe that it is voter "suppression" to take the most modest of steps to ensure that the historically crooked big city machines (run by Democrats) aren't able to cheat on election day by requiring people to be able to prove they are who they say they are when showing up at the polls in order to keep them from voting a dozen or more times is pure sophistry.
Sophistry would be an improvement over this kind of idiocy:
The administration's denial of reality reaches a delusional peak in its refusal to acknowledge basic science describing the massive climate change now under way. Against the advice of all serious experts, the government has grossly failed in its responsibility to our descendants. It has consistently sought to undermine the Kyoto treaty and refused to encourage energy conservation. We insist on a clean break with this shameful record. Our government should be taking the lead in reducing greenhouse gases, recognizing our responsibilities as the world's leading polluter. We should be investing massively in energy sources that carry out a commitment to environmental stewardship and help restore our manufacturing base at the same time.
First, there is nothing "basic" about the science of global warming or climate change. There may, in fact, be no more complex question ever confronted in a collective way by so many scientific disciplines. Perhaps the scientific riddle of the atomic bomb, an effort that involved chemists, several branches of theoretical physicists, and engineers, to name a few rivals the problems confronting the scientific community in coming up with practical answers to the questions surrounding the theory of global warming. It doesn't help that ideology has so suffused the debate that contrarians can be tarred with the sin of denying reality. Which reality? Whose reality?
The only consensus that scientists seem to have achieved is that the planet is getting warmer and that humans are at least partially to blame. Beyond that, specific, measurable, scientific progress in answering basic questions like why are CO2 levels in the lower atmosphere not rising as fast as the models say they should or is global warming actually a result of cyclical solar activity is lacking.
Does requiring proof before we penalize ourselves to the tune of a couple of trillion dollars in lost and reduced economic activity make sense? Not to a liberal. And the Manifesto's call for a restoration of our manufacturing base at the same time that we're supposedly slashing our greenhouse gas emissions to 1993 levels as called for by Kyoto is jaw dropping stupidity. How, praytell, are we to increase economic activity in a sector of the economy that contributes enormous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions while staying competitive with China and India - two nations not obligated under Kyoto to curtail their atmospheric pollution?
Smoke and mirrors, I guess. As long as the smoke doesn't pollute.
Where the Manifesto loses much of its focus is in this digression from the facts:
The administration's contempt for science is of a piece with its general disdain for reason -- a prejudice that any modern society ought to have left behind. Whether confronting scientific research, evolution, birth control, foreign policy, drug pricing, or the manner in which it makes decisions, the Bush administration has defied evidence and logic, sabotaging its own professional civil servants. It refuses serious consultation with experts and critics. It acts secretly, in defiance of the powers of Congress. It refuses to identify those whose advice it solicits, even concealing the names of the vice president's staff. It stifles civil servants attempting to do their jobs. It appoints cronies whose political loyalty cannot compensate for their incompetence. When challenged, it responds with lies and distortions.
A close look at this litany of complaints reveals some truth along with some typical liberal bunkum. Refusing to listen to critics and not taking the advice of political foes would be sins committed by every President since Washington. Cronyism is also as old as the republic - although this Administration has made a nasty habit of placing their cronies in positions where they fail miserably - and publicly.
But "sabotaging" its civil servants? And what powers of Congress has the Administration "defied" by acting secretly? This is hyperbole, pure and simple. Perhaps more than other recent Administrations, this one has found itself at war with the inside the beltway crowd - especially in the intelligence community. But civil servants are not elected. And when they seek to undermine policy established by elected officials just because they disagree with it, what else are you to do except "stifle" them? The brazenness with which this kind of bureaucratic turf protection and disregard has gone on for 6 years should have these good government liberals up in arms. Except, of course, they agree with the bureaucrats that policies they oppose should be squelched.
While the Manifesto is primarily inoffensive liberal pablum, this section is risible:
This government's failures to respect the process of public reason have generated predictable consequences -- none of them good. The Bush administration has failed to protect its citizens from disaster -- from foreign enemies on September 11, 2001, and from the hurricane and flood that afflicted the Gulf Coast in 2005. It has driven the war in Iraq to an impasse. It is incapable of presenting a plausible strategy to bring our military intervention to a tenable conclusion.
How does a failure "to respect the process of public reason" by this Administration prevent an attack where the terrorists who carried it out were trained and nurtured under the previous do-nothing Presidency of Bill Clinton and while the United States government ignored the ideology that animated them for more than a quarter century? And "public reason" should tell any rational person to get the hell out of the way of a hurricane - which highlights the failure of state and local governments to implement their own disaster plans not Washington's timid and belated response once the storm had hit.
Finally, the Manifesto makes clear what the real problem with America is; too many people vote for conservatives:
We refuse to confine our criticisms to personalities. We believe that the abuses of power that have been commonplace under Bush's rule must be laid not only at his door -- and the vice president's -- but at the doors of a conservative movement that has, for decades, undermined government's ability to act reasonably and effectively for the common good.
We love this country. But true patriotism does not consist of bravado or calumny. It resides in faithfulness to our great constitutional ideals. We are a republic, not a monarchy. We believe in the rule of law, not secret prisons. We insist on justice for all, not privilege for the few. In repudiating these American ideals, the Bush administration disgraces America and damages our claim to democratic leadership in the larger world.
Now this is more like the liberalism we've come to know and love; irrational, incoherent, sloganeering instead of rational thought, gross exaggeration, and the inevitable contradictions - as in the authors generously "refusing to confine their criticisms to personalities" and then proceeding to do so by saying that the "Bush Administration disgraces America."
But it is the calumnious statement that conservatives have "for decades, undermined government's ability to act reasonably and effectively for the common good" that the authors reveal modern liberalism to be the collectivist nightmare they truly are. Any group or ideology that purports to speak for the "common good" in a country of such radically diverse interests, sects, races, creeds, and economic strata should be feared. Not only is the Manifesto saying that the American people are idiots because they have voted for conservatives consistently over the last quarter century, but that conservatives themselves are illegitimate guardians of the public trust with regards to the "common weal."
I believe in the collective wisdom of the people over the ability of government to determine what is actually the "common good." And this is the primary difference between liberals and conservatives. In a nation of 300 million people, popular will makes itself known only through the ballot box and not in some academics ivory tower or conference room at a liberal think tank. The failure of modern liberalism to understand this simple, straightforward truth about America and her people is why they continue to lose elections - not because they haven't "defined themselves" properly. They can come out with a dozen "Manifestos" and as long as they refuse to acknowledge their utter and complete contempt for the will of the people, they will remain in the political wilderness.
As the Democrats seem poised to take power on election day, liberals might remind themselves that only the extraordinary hubris and stupidity of Republicans and not any grand clash of ideas is giving them this victory. If they have learned nothing from Republicans about listening to the people as to what constitutes the "common good" and continue to treat the voters as wayward children who need to be coddled and nannied, then they will almost certainly be returned to the political oblivion to which they have been banished these many years.
Tell that to NION and International ANSWER (warning: hate sites), both of which were formed before Iraq. And both of which still form the core of the... elements... that make up the antiwar movement today.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The "International Answer" is calling the midterm election a charade even before the ballots are cast! It doesn't sound like they support freedom or the ideals of the constitution to me.
And NION is just WAY off in left field.... they sure have a different basis for their reality all right.
Michael Moore was a vocal opponent. Moveon.org was against. They gloss over that now, of course. The same way they conveniently "forget" about the left's nearly unanimous opposition to the first gulf war, when Iraq invaded and annexed a sovereign neighbor. I would like to hear a liberal attempt to square opposition to the first gulf war with support of the Balkans intervention. I haven't ever heard it even attempted. They know it is impossible to come up with anything so they don't bother coming up with a rationale. Well, impossible to come up with anything other than "if we don't have any national interests there, and there is a Democrat in the White House, send in the Marines!"
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
of the 1st Gulf War, but not of the war in the Balkans.
Hmmm...
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Rick has more communications talent than his brother who works for Big Brother of the MSM. His sperm should be frozen so that Irish-Catholic DNA is preserved to spawn new generations of what Yeats called the indomitable Irishry.
Plain old Common Sense beats the nostrums of frantic liberal prestidigitators each seeking to top the other as the top snake-oil salesman of the month.
The self-referential delirium these denizens of academe project reminds me of that guy behind the curtain in my favorite movie, who conjures up wizardry that lasts for a minute and then is dust in the wind.
The whole American Progress diorama reminds me of St. Augustine furiously writing City of God in Hippo around 410 as the Vandals are camped outside the city with their siege machines. These holier-than-thou navel-gazing lint-picking ninnies accuse everybody else of all sorts of evil deeds while never engaging in some introspection of themselves that could lead to their own accountability---a concept they don't seem to recognize.
As a guy named Mark Rudd told me long ago when I was in SDS and he stayed in my Ann Arbor digs: "No fault on the left."
His other mantra, after smoking all my dope: "Dare to cheat, dare to win."
...in Lucian's aptly-titled A True Story, ca.130AD, a work of consummate, fantastic science-fiction which begins with the disclaimer that his writing is better than the so-called "historians" and story-tellers of his day, as well as their predecessors, because:
[M]y lying is far more honest than theirs, for though I tell the truth in nothing else, I shall at least be truthful in saying that I am a liar. I think I can escape the censure of the world by my own admission that I am not telling a word of truth. Be it understood, then, that I am writing about things which I have neither seen nor had to do with nor learned from others--which, in fact, do not exist at all and, in the nature of things, cannot exist. Therefore my readers should on no account believe in them.
Off the soapbox, and that concludes today's Ancient Novel course. ;-)
Not in Our Name is another Revolutionary Communist Party Front, just like World Can't Wait (somehow the world did wait, but that's another story).
Keep an eye on ANSWER. I expect they will call for insurrection if the Dems lose next month.
Calls to insurrection are still a crime, aren't they?
By the way, ANSWER is calling for Oct 28 "protests" against the war, again. I live in the Bay Area, and even here these events are much smaller every time they happen. I do expect them to pick up steam if the Dems lose.
In fact, it is a defining characteristic of modern liberalism, this cloying self righteousness. It fits in with their constant need to avoid introspection by formulating intellectual conceits based on a heroic self-image, standing up against the villainy of the opposition with only the lantern of truth and a pen to battle evil.
i gotta hand it to you - it would be pretty damned hard to write something more irrational and incoherent, with more gross exaggeration and sloganeering instead of rational thought. the sheer amount of irony is remarkable, the strawman per paragraph ratio is off the charts. but that paragraph is the cherry on top. it spurts irony - great fountains of it. it's nearly impossible to believe someone could write such a thing. you should really indulge in a little introspection of your own.
I want to live and see my great (possibly a second great) grandchildren grow up in a safe and valiant USA. Much as my grandparents had the chance to see my generation do.
I see one side of the political spectrum at least pretending to try for that future and the other side Actively engaged in damaging/destroying everything the USA stands for.
I am going to do everything I can to get the pretenders to actually do what they pretend to do and destroy forever the others.
What do You see and what will you do because of it?
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
We don't cross paths often enough, but your comment here is spot on...wish you could do a whole post in this vein...
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Wow, quite the reception to that comment. I must admit a bit of embarrassment.
I will consider doing a whole post in this vein, but it will take some time to work it up to the standard such an argument truly deserves...
Again, thank you, everyone.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Seriously, your wisdom, appreciated in morsels, would be much more so in whole meals!
evermore.......
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I see one side of the political spectrum at least pretending to try for that future and the other side Actively engaged in damaging/destroying everything the USA stands for.
then you are, i'm sorry to say, delusional; you're seeing something that simply doesn't exist. the 60% of this country who thinks W and his policies are miserable failures, and who think we need to go another way, are not longing for the destruction of this country, quite the opposite, in fact. if you want to attribute political disagreement to treasonous malice, then you should get yourself to a psychiatrist, pronto.
I am going to do everything I can to get the pretenders to actually do what they pretend to do and destroy forever the others.
then i hope you're doing more than typing little screeds on the internet. if you really believe there is a gigantic mass of traitors in this country, then it's your duty, your responsibility, to alert the proper authorities. and, the fact that you and your pals aren't marching around with your rifles, rounding up The Others and making America Safe For Republicans, makes me think you're not really serious.
the fact that you and your pals aren't marching around with your rifles, rounding up The Others and making America Safe For Republicans, makes me think you're not really serious.
He IS making this country safe, for all of us! It's a shame that you are not!
if there is really a mass of traitors, typing isn't going to get rid of them. the punishment for treason isn't having nasty things written about you, is it? did we defeat the Germans at Pearl Harbor by typing about them ?
"come on boys, grab your laptops, there's traitors about!" isn't really going to do it, i'm afraid.
no, not by typing. by serving this nation in the military. by being a military recruiter. but, of course, you wouldn't know that! you have your preconceived notions, and all of us are wrong. crawl back under your rock...please!
of course, you wouldn't know that
of course i wouldn't. i freely admit to now knowing everbody's personal history here. nonetheless, my point about his delusions still stands.
...that the above was enough to get you out of hot water for trying to promulgate the chickenhawk smear here, think again. Retract and apologize, or go home. Your call.
And be grateful. I normally just ban.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
surely you can see that i'm (facetiously) trying to talk him into taking up arms against his countrymen, who he has all but accused of treason ?
there's nothing "chickenhawk" about this. sheesh.
...retracting and apologizing. Seeing as you really didn't mean to chickenhawk, after all.
Last chance.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
i can't retract something i never said. i can't retract your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what i did say.
Raven is currently an NCO in the US Army, serving as a recruiter. If you're interested, you can go to his personal info and email him. He's able to sign a recruit anywhere in the US.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
It is better to remain silent and be though a fool than to move your fingers and remove all doubt.
Of course, he might have gone to a government school sometime in the last twenty years or so and that version of history makes him feel better about himself.
In Vino Veritas
It is better to remain silent and be though a fool than to move your fingers and remove all doubt.
i agree.
have you ever seen "Animal House" ?
do you want?
You seem to be saying that you will not accept mere criticism of you and yours, that you won't accept anything less than being hung from the nearest telephone pole. Is that really what you want to say?
if the people who oppose W's foreign policy are actively working to "destroy" this country, then they are committing treason - a federal crime. and, if that's what you really think is happening, then why aren't you working day and night to have these criminals put behind bars (at the very least) ? and if you can't be stirred to even send the FBI a tip on their handy web form, then you're practically complicit. and you should knock off the treason talk, because you're just drawing attention to your own abetment.
on the other hand, maybe you see a distinction between literal "treason" and what you're accusing 60+% of your fellow countrymen of doing. if so, could you explain it ? and could you also explain why your rhetoric doesn't seem to make any distinction ?
on the other, other hand, maybe it's just hollow rhetoric. in that case, you should expect that people will, from time to time, call bullsh!t on it.
i'm betting on the third option, but i'd like to hear it from the bull's mouth.
that if the people who claim that BusHitler stole several elections, lied the country to war for the benefit of his Jewish-oil-company cronies and is now imposing a fascistic-theocratic dictatorship on America believe what they are saying, they should be doing a lot more about it than writing on blogs. Heck, elections are pointless, since the GOP has control of the election machines.
All of this can be found on the lefty blogs and on the bookshelves of the nearest bookstore. Either you people believe what you say but are cowards, or it's all an act.
... simply stick to the conversation we have here ? i'm seriously not up for defending arguments i didn't make.
so, how about it - can you answer my questions about the "destroying America" rhetoric?
I want to hear you admit that your buddies are fools or cowards.
And, now that he is, I would like the mass accusations of treason on both sides to stop, thank you very much (and pointedly not looking at anybody specific). If nothing else, it's needlessly provocative.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
a trying day... :>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
but others may not, you've still got Moe to deal with. You need to be much better known here before you trot out the heavy handed sarcasm or you'll be taken for a troll, a fool, or both. And if you'll see the discussion on media bias and especially my exchange on the analogy between the Tet Offensive and the mounting violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll see why many of us here believe that The Left is aiding and abetting our implacable enemies. That is as much of a show of good faith towards you as I can muster. Now its up to you to prove you're worth talking to.
In Vino Veritas
I was so busy defending Raven's honor I skipped right over that one myself! Had I realized he was (obviously) an American History teacher in a public high school I wouldn't have said anything!
Republican?
Becasue surely no one who is sane sober and awake could possibly beleive in freedom and America's future and vote deomcrat.
I appreciate the depth of feeling for the position that anyone who votes Democrat is insane -- these are scary times, and voting should be serious. But I am curious if you see a danger in the view that half the country (more or less) is insane, drunk and/or asleep. I'm not trying to be a wise guy; I just wonder about what good it does to demonize a significant number of fellow Americans.
I agree it's an issue that is present on both sides of the aisle, but I thought I'd ask the question of the side that lives here.
I don't have lots of time, so I'll make the list short.
-> George McGovern. Easily the most incompetent, unqualified candidate to run in the last 50 years. Would fit it well with Ramsey Clark and International ANSWER.
-> Jimmy Carter. Failed domestic policies, ran from confrontation with Islamofacists and Russians, gutted the military, made the US a laughing stock worldwide.
-> Walter Mondale. Was further to the left than even Carter. On everything.
-> Mike Dukakis. Heh. Not as far to the left as McGovern but the silliest lightweight ever nominated.
-> Bill Clinton. Refused to respond in any kind of coordinated manner to terrorist attacks, reinforcing Carter's legacy that the US is a paper tiger. Supported things like the Gorlik Wall making enforcement against domestic terrorism virtually impossible.
-> John Kerry. The Dem's have the audacity to nominate a man who committed treason in 1972 while a USNR officer.
-> The entire Democratic leadership of the Senate. Durbin thinks US troops are the SS. Reid and Co. have no plan but to criticise Bush. For anything.
-> The entire Democratic leadership of the House. Pelosi. Murtha. Impeachment. Katrina hearings. Ad nauseam.
Any "demonization" is self inflicted.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I guess I worded my question poorly, but I appreciate the response.
What I'm wondering is can there be respect for the other side; can you acknowledge that there may be an honest and equally deeply felt position with regard to these issues? For example, I don't make any bones about the fact that I think the Iraq war has not been good for the country, and it's going to be with us and our kids and grandkids for a long time to come. But, I don't have any doubt that the President honestly believed that this was the best thing for us. I'd like to see Democrats and Republicans putting the best folks between them to come up with a way out of this situation. But I'm afraid that both sides have such a profound lack of respect for their opponents that we're just going to argue among ourselves endlessly. History shows us where that kind of squabbling and jockeying for power leads.
That said, I realize this may be close to a threadjack, if it's not already, so my apologies.
I am a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. I think it is the centerpiece of the war on Islamofacism and a clear victory (read democratic Iraq) is critical to our survival as a nation.
That said, I'm very unhappy about the way the war has been fought. I don't like the seemingly limited rules of engagement and I'm not at all fond of the pass that Iran and Syria have gotten with respect to their support of terrorist in Iraq and Lebanon.
I'm not real please with W's domestic policy either. Immigration "reform", entitlement expansion, DOE, etc.
Now then, to your point about "respect" for Democrats. Not only do I not respect the Democratic leadership, I generally think they are anti-American and would prefer to live in a world run by Kofi Annan. They have not only declared war on Bush, but have done everything possible to undermine US effectiveness around the world. Their actions are serving to prolong the war in Iraq because the enemy sees division here (rightly so) and will exploit that division by simply hanging on until they wear us down.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
My major problem with the Democratic leadership is quite more profound: it's not just that I can't trust them with the war, it's that I can't trust most of them at all. They're worse than weathervanes.
Shoot, the openly antiwar ones are the best of a generally sorry bunch. You know what you'll get with Feingold and Kuchinich. Granted, you won't actually want it, but there'll no illusions there.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
You said it better than I.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I suspect that while we're busy trading calls of "traitor" and "war-profiteer" someone else will take America's place in the world, and we'll be another in a long line of history's question of "how did that world power end up on the scrap heap?" We've survived a lot along the way, though, so maybe it won't happen to us.
But thanks for answering a question I've had for a long time.
Your time might be better spent trying to cure the disease consuming your own party, rather than coming here attacking those who observe that your party is diseased.
Oh please. Provide links to where elected Republicans have accused Dem's of treason, being "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican". I will admit that I have frequently accused John Kerry of treason (in 1972) and make no bones about the fact that I think D's are antiAmerican. I'm also not an elected official nor am I a spokesperson for the R's.
The D leadership, on the other hand, has frequently accused Bush, Cheney, etal of treason (in the Plame flap), directly questioned their patriotism, their intelligence, accused them of bribery (Halliburton, BigOil, etc), and on and on.
Take this subject up with your party.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Well, I learned a long time ago that it's pointless to discuss something with anyone who sees only "black" and "white." Sorry to have interrupted.
as attempting to describe color to the blind.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
rememember me? Three enjoyable months spent on that site, much fun parrying stupidity and self hypnosis. Ah, those were the good old days.
If you wish to use the detritus of what once was a weak mind ask yourself where are the details of all those promises, the one left over from 1933, that apparently have not been filled in over 70 years. Do you actually believe that someone has a right to housing, and if so what about the rights of those who must finance that right? Or do the rights cancel each other out?
Don't bother, you'll only give yourself a headache.
Wire tapping, and Americans only? The "illegal" program is still in place, the man who ran it is now head of the CIA, confirmed with over 70 votes. Surely you remember the squealing over at ObWi when you and the liberal intelligentsia first heard about this program. What happened? Did subsequent events teach you anything? Can you learn?
The essence of the liberal is to transfer his ego to government action and expansion. The clod becomes wise, progressive, compassionate, assuming attributes he may not have or would have to work for to obtain. It's morality on the cheap,obtained by equally cheap answers, " let the federal government do it". That's it, that's the whole thing in a nutshell. Empty, barren, and simpleminded.
If anything the original post was too kind. Now return to the womb of Obsidian Wings.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
>cleek, back to the cesspool of Obsidian Wings with you.
i think i'll come and go as i please, thanks.
in your non-response to me. A diminished or nonexistent ego perhaps. "Pick a topic" you say. Fair enough, although I already did that, realizing that you're slow I'll do it again.
So cleek, tell me what happened to the infamous Wilson/Plame/Rove in leg irons scandal? Where is Clarence Darrow Fitzgerald on that one? Surely you remember the inflamed rage at the site where you and the other apes gather to commiserate over that crime[?].
You see, poor fellow, you're played like a cheap violin by the media that feeds you your peanuts.
"Pick a topic", from what I've seen of your posts today you haven't followed your own advice, normally a good thing.
Hide behind the polls if you will and tuck the American Prospect under your pillow[ I do hope you find a concrete proposal while doing so }, your beloved democrats offer nothing but relocation to Okiniwa and the false promises on behalf of a government that has trouble delivering the mail.
Promises I might add that are yellow with age and as ever, with no price tag.
But if you must submerge yourself in the federal government and a party that regards you with contempt, in order for ego support and moral salvation, be my guest. It's better than doing drugs, I think.
P S The word treason did appear from your side of the political fence during the Wilson/Plame laughable fiasco, do all liberals need psychiatric help? And in a small case sense,is not continually revealing secrets during war time treason, the test not being your emotions and bile and who you hate.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
if you're gonna berate someone, at least berate them for positions they take and arguments they offer.
in other words: none of what you're ranting about has anything to do with me or any position i've taken here (or elsewhere, for that matter). if you'd like to discuss something i actually said, i'd be more than happy to discuss it with you - but i'm not going to defend your strawmen for you.
...you can stop any time. If you are not done, you can take it to email.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
for a while I thought you were against NSA tracking, against our foreign policy, and even thought that Wilson/Plame had been victimized by the WH. I even suspected you harbored a soft spot for the Democratic Party. Wrong on all counts I guess.
Moe, my apologies, but I spent three months with these guys.
Signing off.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
What's the message here?
Though poor and minority neighborhoods suffered the brunt of Katrina's fury, residents living in white neighborhoods have been three times as likely as homeowners in black neighborhoods to seek state help in resolving insurance disputes, according to an Associated Press computer analysis.
...People of color and modest means, who often need the most help after a major disaster, are disconnected from the government institutions that can provide it, or distrustful of those in power.
...The insurance industry and state regulators say they made special efforts — even in the midst of Katrina's chaos — to reach out to poor and minority neighborhoods to inform them of options.
Of course, everything looks like racism if you view the world through the prism of race.
First of all, water being the "great leveler", is no respecter of race. The predominantly white Lakeview area of New Orleans as well as St. Bernard Parish were both under 8-10 feet of water for weeks. I'd call that a "brunt".
Ignored by the reporter are the neighborhoods of New Orleans that suffered flooding but have no distinct racial identity, namely Gentilly & parts of Uptown. I'll stick my neck out & guess that insurance claims in these neighborhoods were intermediate between those in the "black areas" and those in the "white areas".
Is it really any surprise to anyone that those who understand, trust and work the system are rewarded for their effort? That perhaps there's a correlation with economic status, not race?
The article contains what is perhaps the most vivid evidence of why the Liberal Manifesto is so bankrupt: when the mantra is endlessly repeated about how the poor & downtrodden really don't have a chance in this world, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The fact that you are quoting from the second paragraph of the piece leads me to believe either you were too lazy to read the entire piece or too deficient in reading skills to understand it.
Where's the "sloganeering?" What strawman have I set up? Where am I "irrational and incoherent?" (I think I make myself emphatically clear throughout the piece.)
You're a name caller, a provacatuer - not a serious person. Now go to bed and I'll be up to tuck you in shortly. We adults want to talk about grown up things.
why reply to yourself, if you're talking to me?
The fact that you are quoting from the second paragraph of the piece leads me to believe either you were too lazy to read the entire piece or too deficient in reading skills to understand it.
that is a truly ridiculous conclusion. as is typical, when someone critiques something on the web, i quoted that paragraph because i think it represents, in a nutshell, what is wrong with your piece as a whole.
Where's the "sloganeering?
it's everywhere you use a threadbare Republican talking point, everywhere you substitute pat phrases for analysis, everywhere you assert something conservatives just know to be true, instead of actually demonstrating its truth with actual examples.
What strawman have I set up?
my god. the whole thing is a strawman. you're railing against an enemy that doesn't exist. you invent a faceless mass of liberals, assign them certain ways of thinking and behaving, and then you knock them down. Victory!
collectivist nightmare
[x] Sloganeering
[x] Strawman
[x] Irrational
[ ] Insightful
[ ] Accurate
Where am I "irrational and incoherent?"
everwhere! you make a seemingly-endless series of giant sweeping pronouncements about the mental state and thought processes of tens of millions of people; you set yourself up as the slayer of Liberal Evil, armed only with a pen, The Truth, and your own superior morality - and you start by blaming your Enemy for doing the same. really, introspection would do you good.
occasionally you talk about specifics (the global warning section, for exampe) and you make reasonable arguments. but inevitably, you're right back to the mass-psychoanalysis, strawman, demonizing nonsense, and whatever credibility you earned goes right out the window. you should stick to the specifics and avoid the grand pronouncements.
You're a name caller, a provacatuer - not a serious person.
wow. in ten words, where you call me three different names, you accuse me of being a name caller. you really have a gift for this kind of thing!
Now go to bed and I'll be up to tuck you in shortly.
spoken like a truly Serious Person.
what the Known Fact per paragraph ratio for that pile of ridiculousness is? Pretty high, I should think.
"We reaffirm the great principle of liberalism: that every citizen is entitled by right to the elementary means to a good life."
THIS IS NOT LIBERALISM, IT IS DISNEYFIED JUVENILE SOCIALISM, and an openended unfunded mandate to make everyone a welfare case...
and here is the idiotic 'means' the liberal Democrats will foist on us:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/
Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act -- H.R. 3760: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and 74 Democratic cosponsors propose a new "Department of Peace and Nonviolence" as well as "National Peace Day." Cosponsors include three would-be Democratic Chairmen: John Conyers (Judiciary), George Miller (Education and the Workforce), and Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means).
Gas Stamps -- H.R. 3712: Jim McDermott (D-WA) and eight Democratic cosponsors want a "Gas Stamps" program similar to the Food Stamps program to subsidize the gasoline purchases of qualified individuals.
Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, is a cosponsor.
Voting Rights for Criminals - H.R. 1300: John Conyers (D-MI) and 32 Democratic cosponsors, and H.R. 663: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 28 Democratic cosponsors would let convicted felons vote. Rep. John Conyers is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which would consider this legislation.
Expand Medicare to Include Diapers -- H.R. 1052: Barney Frank (D-MA) supports Medicare coverage of adult diapers. Barney Frank is the would-be Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Nationalized Health Care - H.R. 4683: John Dingell (D-MI) and 18 Democratic cosponsors want to expand Medicare to cover all Americans. John Dingell is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who along with cosponsors Charlie Rangel, would-be Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, would-be Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, would have jurisdiction over the proposal.
Federal Regulation of Restaurant Menus -- H.R. 5563: Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 25 Democratic cosponsors authorize federal regulation of the contents of restaurant menus.
Taxpayer Funded Abortions & Elimination of all Restrictions on Abortion, Including Parental Notice - H.R. 5151: Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and 66 Democratic cosponsors want to overturn even minimal restrictions on abortion such as parental notice requirements. The bill would also require taxpayer funding of abortions through the various federal health care programs. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, is an original cosponsor.
Bill of Welfare Rights -- H.J. Res. 29-35: Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) proposes a Soviet-style "Bill of Welfare Rights," enshrining the rights of full employment, public education, national healthcare, public housing, abortion, progressive taxation, and union membership. On some these measures, Rep. Jackson is joined by up to 35 Democratic cosponsors, including would-be Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.
This kind of earnestness on the part of the left is something we've grown used to over the years. In fact, it is a defining characteristic of modern liberalism, this cloying self righteousness. It fits in with their constant need to avoid introspection by formulating intellectual conceits based on a heroic self-image, standing up against the villainy of the opposition with only the lantern of truth and a pen to battle evil. Creating a "moral" universe that has about as much foundation as a pool of quicksand, liberals who are constantly defining and redefining themselves fail to see the monumental irony in their efforts to simplify their riot of conceits into any kind of logical or coherent set of principles.
This is a PERFECT paragraph. I bow before your writing skills.
This sums up my view of lefties exactly.(warning, I am going to steal parts of it)
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle