Why the Left is so dangerous by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No. Supporting a US withdraw from Iraq might be patriotic. But what makes it patriotic or not patriotic has nothing to do with the particular political opinion, but with the motivations and feelings of the person.

I think that was my point.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:57 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...
In the UK, Socialists have existed for a while; their beliefs and goals are better understood, but in the US socialism is a relatively new and untested idea.
...

What were Helen Keller's politics? What were the politics of the writer of the Pledge of Allegiance? Those are just the first two ardent socialists that came to mind when I read your comment. Socialism in the US was alive and well during the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries.

A large number of the people who fought for changes that we take for granted today (women voting, child labor laws, forty hour work week, workplace safety, etc.) considered themselves socialists.

To state that US socialism is a relatively new and untested idea is to deny a portion of our country's history and heritage. It is to purposefully write out the contributions of the American working class. Contributions that were, more often than not, paid for in blood and bodies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:33 AM

And Martin Luther King was a socialist. I think there are socialists or people with socialist tendencies involved or have been involved in US politics, but there is no major movement, and as far as I know never has been, that directly advocates socialism in the United States. Supporting the pledge of allegiance, suffrage and civil rights is not socialism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So, which in your mind is the higher duty: love of country or support of government? And AFA the potential conflict between patriotism and republicanism, do you see this as a possibility? If so, which is the higher duty?- SIGNY

Patriotism is the higher duty. -FINN

I guess that means I'm a republican first and a patriot second and supporting a specific government comes last. I was always under the impression that the Founding Fathers placed republicanism first. If they had been patriots first, wouldn't they have continued to support the monarchy, seeing as there was at the time no alternate government that demanded their loyalty?

Quote:
No what I did was point out how YOU are using the government and country in an equivalent sense.- FINN

Huh? Where did I do THAT?- SIGNY

I’ve already explained that numerous times, I’m not sure what else I can say the will clarify it further.-FINN

You've used a phrase several times that I've specifically asked about which is And once again you correlate your opinion about how America could be successful with the desire for American success and therefore continue to confuse patriotism with politics. Is THAT your clarification? If so, could you use different phraseology or explain what you mean in more detail 'cause I'm not getting it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:21 AM

SOUPCATCHER

And the reason you don't know about the various socialist movements in the US during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is because they are not included in US history text books. US history text books are notorious for bending over backwards to erase class conflict in our country's history.

It is one thing to make the claim that the contributions of various historical US socialist organizations are unimportant, it is quite another to deny their very existence. The first claim can be debated. The second claim is exclusionary. To deny the existence of historical US socialist organizations is to rely on the successful results of the attempt to remove their discussion from popular discourse. An absence of approved evidence should not be used as evidence of complete absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess that means I'm a republican first and a patriot second and supporting a specific government comes last. I was always under the impression that the Founding Fathers placed republicanism first. If they had been patriots first, wouldn't they have continued to support the monarchy, seeing as there was at the time no alternate government that demanded their loyalty?

If you assume, as evidently you do, that government is all there really is to country, and that patriotism necessary implies government. But government and country are two different things. And patriotism is not love for your government; it is love for your country. And in fact those who supported the Monarchy in Colonial America were not called patriots. They were called Loyalists. It was not their country they loved, but rather they remained “loyal” to a government that was thousands of miles away. So it still seems like you are misunderstanding the definition of patriotism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Socialism in the US was alive and well during the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries.

I remember being quite surprised when I learned the much of southeast Kansas was firmly socialist around the turn of the century (1900). Several counties formed governments that were avowedly socialist. It sometimes seems counter intuitive, but it our nation was definitely more open to new political ideas back then.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It was not their country they loved, but rather they remained “loyal” to a government that was thousands of miles away. So it still seems like you are misunderstanding the definition of patriotism.

Well, technically prior to the secession of the colonies, their country was Britain.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well, technically prior to the secession of the colonies, their country was Britain.

Actually, I would say that a great many of them had probably never even seen Britain and knew nothing specifically of it. Many did not consider it their country – their government, perhaps, but not their country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:45 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Why the Left is so dangerous

AURaptor, your thread title itself is fear-mongering Neo-con style bull. And your attack on Kennedy comes down to his use of the word "traitor" when we have been treated to the Neo-cons calling everyone left of the farthest far right "traitors" for the past 6 years..."if you're not with us, you're against us." "opposing the war gives aid and comfort to the enemy" "Michael Moore is a terrorist" etc.

But then, this is an AURaptor post, so calling the left "dangerous" because one man uses utterly unremarkable politically charged rhetoric against Bush & co. is right up there with claiming America is "in danger" of dhimmification because of a single unbelievably lucky terrorist attack.

But then, it is in the nature of the totalitarian mind-set to see the slightest whiff of dissent as a grave danger that must be put down.

And for cryin' out loud, at this crazy moment in our history, the "left" in this country is all but defunct! So defunct, and forgotten, that we got Finn the History Professor saying here that socialism is a new idea in the U.S. LOL! *cough*labor unions*cough*

To paraphrase Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to swollow whatever fable the ruling elite want to shovel."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay Finn, I see where you're coming from, and I made the same error of using country and government interchangeably. But just because the FF called themselves Patriots doesn't necessarily mean that they met YOUR definition of patriotism. This wouldn't be the first or the last time that a group called itself by a nice-sounding name. There were so many different mores, economies, religions, customs, and politics between colonies that it would be hard to say they identified themselves as "Americans"; the only thing they had in common was that they wanted the British out.

In your opinion, what constitutes a "country"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In your opinion, what constitutes a "country"?

It’s a land or region that someone feels a personally connection with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Does that include the people, economy, customs, language, religion, and government? Or is it strictly place-related?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does that include the people, economy, customs, language, religion, and government? Or is it strictly place-related?

Well, I think it is place-related, but I think it could have something to do with the culture as well, so language, customs and religion could be factors. Economy and government could both be factors as well, but these are more functional, less aesthetic. People normally become attached to aesthetic properties of their country. For me, economy and government fall more into the “how,” and less the “what.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:23 AM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And the reason you don't know about the various socialist movements in the US during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is because they are not included in US history text books. US history text books are notorious for bending over backwards to erase class conflict in our country's history.

no its there, but its delivered more subtly, to avoid the controversy that it truly deserves. take a typical high school history book, and read through the section of colonial America, and the founding of the constitution; and then notice what they leave out (but ill make it easy.. our religious heritage, ie the source of our principles). the whole books like that.. its how socialists have attempted to redefine cultural norms and established values and ethics, while re-writing them to better suit their envisioned secular socialist utopia. it takes time, and a lot of persuasion, to take arms and property and wages away from a free people, in exchange for false promises wrapped in servitude

the argument is really centered around whether socialism is a positive thing, and if its even compatible with our constitutional republic. i would argue that its actually lethal to it.. but then it has never been formally proposed to us as a substitute, so that we can again debate the merits of the two systems(as they did during our founding). we decided long ago that it wasnt.. and i assumed we were all under the impression that we were to defend what we were given by our fore fathers. thats what i object to the most.. the deception and trickery of it all

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, I would say that a great many of them had probably never even seen Britain and knew nothing specifically of it. Many did not consider it their country – their government, perhaps, but not their country.

Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.

So says the conqueror.

And I suspect that if Britain had put more interest into the America’s, treated them more like a part of Britain and less like some colony to serve Britain, there might not have been as much animosity towards the British Crown.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:44 AM

I don't know that there is any problem with the definition of patriotism. I think in the end this debate is skating around the real issue -- what is the role of a loyal opposition in a time of national crisis? In those situations are politics as usual suspended? Is the party in opposition supposed to audit the government during these times or act as cheerleaders?

During peacetime we would never discuss what patriotism means because love of country is self evident. However in peacetime the nation and it's government are more distinct from one another.

I think most people accept that the government should act in the national interest, after all it's elected by the people of it's nation and should owe no loyalty to anyone else. However in times of crisis it becomes essential that people accept the government as working in their interest and look to government for guidance and security. During those times the distinction between government and nation start to blur and that leaves the opposing party with a problem. Any criticism of the government could be seen as criticism of the nation and this has to be avoided. However, if there was ever a time for an opposition to keep an eye on the conduct of government a crisis is the one, not so much because government cant be trusted as that you simply can't afford mistakes and misplays. The more people that look at a problem, the more alternative views are considered, the fewer mistakes get made.

So the opposition is in a pickle. Ideally they should be able to seperate the government from the state and treat them both differently, in practice public feeling makes that hard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:54 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Antimason, if you want to talk about US rebranding take a look at the Cold War. A lot of what is currently taught in US history courses is based on an editing of our history to accentuate the differences between the US and the USSR. In many ways, what we redefined ourselves as, as a country, was anti-Soviet. The USSR was godless, therefore it was necessary that the US become more godfearing. The USSR was seen as socialist, therefore it was necessary that the US remove all references to socialist movements from our history. The USSR needed to exert control over new territory or else it would wither, therefore it was necessary to minimize our own country's tendency to expand the territory over which we exerted influence.

Those of us who grew up in the Cold War were educated to believe in a vision of the US that left out a whole hell of a lot. The real story is much richer and more heroic. The real story is much more about We the People than about the privileged few. The real story is less about the great men of history and more about how citizens of the world can come together in one place and recreate themselves and build something different. The real story acknowledges mistakes and teaches us what to look out for and where we went wrong. The real story treats us like adults with the agency to change. The real story requires us to question the present and look for possible improvements. The real story, in short, is anathema to the status quo and those who benefit the most from the status quo. The real story, then, must not be told.

There's a reason why we only focus on the name Thomas Paine and not on what he actually wrote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.
So says the conqueror.

And I suspect that if Britain had put more interest into the America’s, treated them more like a part of Britain and less like some colony to serve Britain, there might not have been as much animosity towards the British Crown.

Actually, that was pretty much the way that that government treated folks at home as well. There were certain privillages built into the British system that favoured specific classes of people over others. The new up and comers, the merchant classes, the new industrialists folks that made their own fortunes rather than inheriting it fared badly on both sides of the Atlantic, it's just that the ones on the American side had the geographical ability to do something about it. If you look at British history you'll find a lot of the people in the same social class as the founders actually supported the American Revolution and in many respects you got the Republic we should have had after our Civil War. You were lucky, Washington was a better man than Cromwell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:57 AM

LEADB

'Why the Left is so dangerous'

Hmmm, how about 'Why Robert F Kennedy, Jr is so dangerous'?

If we must divide down the middle, I'm clearly left of center; but I must concede this fellow has lost a few wheels.

In any case, the Far Right is, and continues to be, as, or more, dangerous than the Far Left. The Patriot act and other 'goodies' are clearly a legacy of the Right.

So, how about we toss the extremists of both parties out on their butts, fix the damage; and find a way to preserve our rights while protecting the country.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So says the conqueror.

I don't remember conquering anyone, maybe you're confusing me with someone?

Quote:
And I suspect that if Britain had put more interest into the America’s, treated them more like a part of Britain and less like some colony to serve Britain, there might not have been as much animosity towards the British Crown.

Actually the American Colonists had it a lot better off than most people back on the home islands. Add to that, that most of the taxes the colonists were objecting to were being levied to defend the colonies, and colonists, from the French, and you may start to see why the British found the colonists demands so unreasonable.

But far be it from me to point out that there are two sides to every story, I'm sure it all comes down to the evil Brits trampling all over the pure of heart Yankee, who did everything in their power to come to an understanding.

We all likes a bit of PropegandaIsAll

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:43 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Add to that, that most of the taxes the colonists were objecting to were being levied to defend the colonies, and colonists, from the French, and you may start to see why the British found the colonists demands so unreasonable.

Kind of ironic then that the French ended up being our allies against the British.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Kind of ironic then that the French ended up being our allies against the British.

And that there were more French in the last land battle of the war than Colonists, and that the first major victory, was secured by the French fleet.

But it's even more Ironic given the pivotal role the French played in the War of Independence (along side the Dutch and Spanish), that Americans seem to think so poorly of the French these days.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Kind of ironic then that the French ended up being our allies against the British.
And that there were more French in the last land battle of the war than Colonists, and that the first major victory, was secured by the French fleet.

But it's even more Ironic given the pivotal role the French played in the War of Independence (along side the Dutch and Spanish), that Americans seem to think so poorly of the French these days.

Oh it's even more ironic if you also figure in French Canada. The British fight a war with the French to defend the American colonies. The cost of this is passed to the Colonies as taxes which they don't like. Meanwhile the results of that war is a French defeat at the hands of Wolfe and Quebec becomes a british possesion. With French Canada no longer a threat the colonists get ... well somewhat rebelious of those taxes. The French looking for payback for the fall of Quebec back the Americans. France at that time is a monarchy so in effect the French Aristocracy back the Colonists.

When the colonies win their ideas of Republican government become the new radical idea in Europe, and take off in France leading to a revolution in which the same Aristocracy that backed the colonists lose their heads (literally.)

A lot of the nobles that make it out go to Quebec, under British protection.

I think the French suffered what Dr Paul would term foreign policy blowback.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:54 PM

Its almost Poetic isn't it?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Its almost Poetic isn't it?

Yes, it has a certain ironic symetry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:28 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
'Why the Left is so dangerous'

Hmmm, how about 'Why Robert F Kennedy, Jr is so dangerous'?

If we must divide down the middle, I'm clearly left of center; but I must concede this fellow has lost a few wheels.

In any case, the Far Right is, and continues to be, as, or more, dangerous than the Far Left. The Patriot act and other 'goodies' are clearly a legacy of the Right.

So, how about we toss the extremists of both parties out on their butts, fix the damage; and find a way to preserve our rights while protecting the country.

RFK Jr calls for the 'treating' of legitimate businesses as if they had committed treason. And the Patriot Act ? I fail to see the danger here. When I was younger, and heard arguments about how the Gov't had the 'right' to search property for illegal drugs, like one's car, even with out probable cause, I was indifferent. " If you've got nothing to hide, why are you afraid of what they might find. And if you're afraid, then maybe you're hiding something...." Of course, I later grew up and took courses in Constitutional law, and it dawned on me that we, as individuals have rights, and it's the Gov'ts job to PROTECT those rights, not trample on them.

So, to be honest, I'm at a cross roads. On the surface, I see nothing wrong w/ the Patriot Act. All the fears which folks claim 'COULD' happen, aren't. I don't see any rash of people's rights being violated, either by legitimate or false reasons. When the issue of terrorism is brought up, I recall the old line, " If you've got nothing to hide, why worry ? ", which of course brings me to a pause. ISthe 'war on terror' nothing more than a reved up version of the failed and pointless 'war on drugs' ? Then I think of 9/11. I watch a documentary or what ever, and remember what it was like on that day. Sure, there's the possibility that the P.A. could be used and abused.....but as of yet, I'm not convinced it has.

Eyes wide open.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:09 PM

LEADB

"Sure, there's the possibility that the P.A. could be used and abused.....but as of yet, I'm not convinced it has.

Eyes wide open."

And I cannot provide clear proof it has; but I believe the language is problematic and should be tuned back so it cannot be. In any case, yes, keep "Eyes wide open" please.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
And I cannot provide clear proof it has.

*Raises hand*

I can.

Can, have, and did.
See Thread: More Lies and Alibis.

The FBI flatly lied, repeatedly, as an excuse to steal personal info for unapproved data-mining programs unrelated to national security.

Abuses of this nature are like roaches, for every one you see, there's many more you don't cause they just hide it behind various levels of classification - and we find out 10-29 years later.

Such powers are ALWAYS abused, it's just human nature, is what it is.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:11 AM

LEADB

Frem,
Thanks for posting that.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
... The Patriot act and other 'goodies' are clearly a legacy of the Right.

So, how about we toss the extremists of both parties out on their butts, fix the damage; and find a way to preserve our rights while protecting the country.

RFK Jr calls for the 'treating' of legitimate businesses as if they had committed treason. And the Patriot Act ? I fail to see the danger here. When I was younger, and heard arguments about how the Gov't had the 'right' to search property for illegal drugs, like one's car, even with out probable cause, I was indifferent. " If you've got nothing to hide, why are you afraid of what they might find. And if you're afraid, then maybe you're hiding something...." Of course, I later grew up and took courses in Constitutional law, and it dawned on me that we, as individuals have rights, and it's the Gov'ts job to PROTECT those rights, not trample on them.

So, to be honest, I'm at a cross roads. On the surface, I see nothing wrong w/ the Patriot Act. All the fears which folks claim 'COULD' happen, aren't. I don't see any rash of people's rights being violated, either by legitimate or false reasons. When the issue of terrorism is brought up, I recall the old line, " If you've got nothing to hide, why worry ? ", which of course brings me to a pause. ISthe 'war on terror' nothing more than a reved up version of the failed and pointless 'war on drugs' ? Then I think of 9/11. I watch a documentary or what ever, and remember what it was like on that day. Sure, there's the possibility that the P.A. could be used and abused.....but as of yet, I'm not convinced it has.

Eyes wide open.

An additional reference from Frem's...
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_07.php#005351

I take EFF pretty seriously, and as a consequence support it regularly. Based on the information they present, I'm confident we have some abuse going on here.

I'll say it again, I believe the PA needs to either be reworked or tossed; and I lean toward tossed.

Edit: ---added:
You point out that RFK Jr. is 'calling for'; ok, I've already indicated he's lost a few wheels. What more you do you want? And so far it's 'just talk'. If the left actually starts to act on it, actually gets laws passed or prosecutions, heck even investigations, started I'll be behind you yelling for it to stop. So far it is just talk. So let's make fun of RJK Jr. while not necessarily tarring the whole 'left' with the same brush.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think in the end this debate is skating around the real issue -- what is the role of a loyal opposition in a time of national crisis?

In some people's minds there is no such thing as a loyal opposition. You're either loyal or opposed. I have no idea how that mind-set came to be, but I find that mind-set more dangerous than any specific goal or idea.

---------------------------------
Republicanisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I think in the end this debate is skating around the real issue -- what is the role of a loyal opposition in a time of national crisis?
In some people's minds there is no such thing as a loyal opposition. You're either loyal or opposed. I have no idea how that mind-set came to be, but I find that mind-set more dangerous than any specific goal or idea.

---------------------------------
Republicanisall

Loyal to the country or the crown (depending on where you are.) The statement recognises intrinsically that the government is not the country and that opposing the government is not opposing the nation or an act of treason.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Eyes wide open.

....and looking at your own little corner.
It's a nice place, isn't it?
So comfy and safe.

You crack me up, AU.

Chrisisall, constantly scanning with eyes wide open, looking for that which he might be (and at times is) missing.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A person can believe that American success hinges on not going to war with Iraq, but once involved in such a war, a patriotic person does not wish for an American defeat to validify their political positions.

Finn, this is the only 'dumb' thing I think you've ever posted (as opposed to AU, where it's like, wow, another dumb post*sigh*

).

When something bad happens in Iraq, most of us are going "See? I told you this would happen, can we get out now before it gets worse??"
No cheering or high-fives. Sorrow mostly.
Of course there's always gonna be the ocassional smirking git that's into it for self-gratification, just as there will be on the uber-patriotic side if there's a win, but that's not most folk. We love our country we support our troops, and we recognize a mistake when we see it. That's all.
Pardon me if I say that IMO the sentance I quoted of yours smells of hogwash.

...what exactly IS hogwash, btw? Like, soap...but full of dirt or something...?

Digressing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...If you've got nothing to hide, why worry ? ", which of course brings me to a pause. ISthe 'war on terror' nothing more than a reved up version of the failed and pointless 'war on drugs' ? Then I think of 9/11. I watch a documentary or what ever, and remember what it was like on that day.

I think this is the key point that makes me so much more pessimistic about the future of freedom. If our convictions are so fragile, if all it takes is a surprise attack from an enemy to nullify our determination to remain free, then we've already lost. Seriously, even if we manage to turn things around, all it will take is another attack to re-light the fear and panic that drives us to discard our principles. That fragility of spirit is what I call the opposite of patriotism.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:35 AM

I think Finn is actually talking about consequences of actions.

Invading Iraq had consequences, many of which were not foreseen before we started. Likewise pulling out will also have consequences both politically at home and internationally, some of which we don't foresee. I think some people look at the war and the idea of pulling out from only a domestic political context while others look at the bigger picture. I think Finn is saying that pulling out for purely domestic political reasons and failing to consider the wider consequences has as much chance of "blowback" as the invasion did.

Don't really know how you deal with the issue but this is a standard "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" scenario.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think this is the key point that makes me so much more pessimistic about the future of freedom. If our convictions are so fragile, if all it takes is a surprise attack from an enemy to nullify our determination to remain free, then we've already lost. Seriously, even if we manage to turn things around, all it will take is another attack to re-light the fear and panic that drives us to discard our principles. That fragility of spirit is what I call the opposite of patriotism.

SergeantX

That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced. If one massive attack is all it takes to panic a populous Britain would have fallen after the first night of the Blitz. The American public were too comfortable, too secure, their ability to deal with an uncertain world had been weakened though none use. It's like a patient with an immune system that has been compromised, first germ that attacks can almost prove fatal to that society. However, if it survives, it gets stronger for next time.

People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think Finn is saying that pulling out for purely domestic political reasons and failing to consider the wider consequences has as much chance of "blowback" as the invasion did.

That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

It would be so cool to wake up tomorrow and find out that the war was over, and a stable Iraqi government and army were in place....the government is on vacation for August, btw- don't seem as they really want to deal with any of it.
Douchebags.
I have no real hope...

The last angry Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced...
People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced you are. If we don't have the will to fight back against ill-conceived notions like Homeland Security and the phony War on Terror now, how do you see that improving with another attack? The sad fact is, our leadership (and most of the voters who are supporting them) is too stupid to realize we're being played, that we're following the script dreamt up by the terrorists in the first place. The Democrats have no more clue on this than the Republicans.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced...
People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced you are. If we don't have the will to fight back against ill-conceived notions like Homeland Security and the phony War on Terror now, how do you see that improving with another attack? The sad fact is, our leadership (and most of the voters who are supporting them) is too stupid to realize we're being played, that we're following the script dreamt up by the terrorists in the first place. The Democrats have no more clue on this than the Republicans.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Well, you elected them. Sorry to be blunt but the voting record is public and the kind of represenative that can be paniced into voting for this stuff (or worse goes along with it for fear of being seen as "soft") needs replacing.

My view as an outsider is that after the attack congress were happy to rubber stamp anything rather than be painted as unpatriotic/soft on terror. The ones that took the unpopular choice and voted against it are the kinds of men the constitution envisaged running the country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well, you elected them...
The ones that took the unpopular choice and voted against it are the kinds of men the constitution envisaged running the country.

Indeed. The constitution also envisaged a population that demanded those kinds of leaders. We clearly no longer have that going for us.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think Finn is saying that pulling out for purely domestic political reasons and failing to consider the wider consequences has as much chance of "blowback" as the invasion did.

That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

I think that's a valid argument. This is really a question of second guessing the future. There are any number of consequences to staying in and to pulling out a lot of which can not genuinely be foreseen.

A pullout could lead to a terrorist attack that kills many thousand at which point the talking heads will claim a pullout was a mistake, or it might save 1000's of GI lives over the next 5 years in which case it would be considered a good call.

The tough choices are not the ones where one is obviously right and one obviously wrong, it's when you have to deal with degrees of right and wrongness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, this is the only 'dumb' thing I think you've ever posted (as opposed to AU, where it's like, wow, another dumb post*sigh*).

Wow! I’ve only said one dumb thing since I’ve been on this board? Not even I believe that.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

I think we should save as of our troops as we can because they are a valuable resource and human beings. From a military standpoint it is almost always easier to deal with these problems the first time. The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before. There are several sides to this that need to be considered, I’m not saying I have the answer, but I don’t always feel like the loyal opposition is really operating with a complete picture or with real American national interests at heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:08 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Actually the American Colonists had it a lot better off than most people back on the home islands. Add to that, that most of the taxes the colonists were objecting to were being levied to defend the colonies, and colonists, from the French, and you may start to see why the British found the colonists demands so unreasonable.

if i may use this to prove my point above, there has been a deliberate movement to dumb down AMericans, through our (state)education system, to alter our historic perspective. in this case, taxes were relatively low at the time, like 1 or 2%(ive heard) of our gross product, compared to something like 50%(or more)today. the part about 'taxation without representation' has become meaningless in hindsight, since we still are not getting our 'representation'. if we're honost withourselves.. we dont get anything resembling accurate accounting of government spending anymore. to so obviously the true causes of the revolution are far more complex, and IMO conspiratorial, to openly admit to the public

in fact the Boston tea party was an orchestration by the Freemasons, by there own admission. in retrospect, the succession of events following this, the quartering of British soldiers and trade embargoes, really precipitated the revolution. thats why i maintain that secret societies, like the Freemasons, are far more influential then even history suggests.

Quote:
But far be it from me to point out that there are two sides to every story, I'm sure it all comes down to the evil Brits trampling all over the pure of heart Yankee, who did everything in their power to come to an understanding.

the true cause is actually more relevant today, because it was the Bank of England, wanting to force the colonies to borrow money from them, at interest, as a central bank. the colonies were flourishing primarily because they circulated their own 'script', which was debt free, backed in gold and silver. this is one reason why Jefferson and others have been so outspoken about central banks, like the Federal Reserve, and the damage and oppression they cause

Jefferson gets quoted alot.. but Franklin himself has said

Quote:
"the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and others matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Wow! I’ve only said one dumb thing since I’ve been on this board? Not even I believe that.
The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before.

I believe that we can 'win' in Iraq, but I don't believe it will be worth the thousands upon thousands lost (our guys and girls) or the decades it will take to do it.
See? I disagree sometimes, but you have a viewpoint that is always worth considering, at least IMO.
1 dumb thing. That's all I can count.

Love-y my country Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:49 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

France at that time is a monarchy so in effect the French Aristocracy back the Colonists.

When the colonies win their ideas of Republican government become the new radical idea in Europe, and take off in France leading to a revolution in which the same Aristocracy that backed the colonists lose their heads (literally.)

well.. no, to be fair their was quite a bit of difference between our revolution and the French. we retained our British cultural and religious heritages, but we disconnected our ties to the crown and its system of government. the French revolution was instigated and staged by the illuminati, who used contrived events to overthrow existing orthodoxies, the catholic church and the French monarchy. the French were doing quite well under the King, had one of the wealthiest and growing middle classes; so it didnt occur out of necessity. it was an attempt by the elite to reinstitute socialism.. since even the King had done away with forced labor laws and such

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen-
But it's even more Ironic given the pivotal role the French played in the War of Independence (along side the Dutch and Spanish), that Americans seem to think so poorly of the French these days.

its more an ideological opposition to their secular, socialist leanings.. but i dont hold it against them, or you in the UK, or many AMericans.. we're all being decieved equally

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1 dumb thing. That's all I can count.

I’m sure that if I looked hard enough I could find a few more. I also don’t think some people give Auraptor enough credit either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:09 PM