Michael707767 wrote:
All my ideals about abortion, gun control, welfare, small government, etc, mean dick if I am out of work and cannot feed my family. I would rather pay higher taxes and keep my job thank you.
I'd sincerely like an explanation of how voting for a democrat candidate woould help anyone keep a job. Perhaps being a government bureaucrat would help you keep a job, but an airline pilot? Please, someone instruct me.
Now, I'm sorry to dredge this from page two, but I was in NYC for most of the week.
Well, let's see. Among other things I read a book, written by Churchill. It's title is Liberalism and the Social Problem which, according to him, outlines his political philosophy. You might read it.
Thanks for the steer on the book, but what does it contain that refutes my position, or my interpretation of the quote attributed to Churchill?
I'm further suggesting that your thoughtless branding of people into what you define as elitist liberals dislplays a remarkable lack of intellectual depth on your part.
My, my. What
have I missed. Here is what my "branding of people into what you define as elitist liberals" actually does show: it shows that I was not alseep, during my 23 years as a democrat/leftist/hate America First politial operative. It shows that I fully understand exactly what the heart and soul of the democrat party is about: the idea that Americans are too dull witted to govern thenselves properly, or we used to say "progressively." We, the party faithful, regarded ourselves as the only people who were in politics who were sufficiently smart, sufficiently enlightened, sufficiently sensitive, and sufficiently caring to carry the mantle of leadership here in America. The word "Camelot" had more than just a surface meaning, it was the idea that the democrat party was the royalty of American politics, particularly the Kennedys.
You quote above shows a real lack of unsderstanding of what the democrat party is all about. It is ALL about being an elite group of the "correct people" who "should" be in leadership positions in America, to help government define what children should be taught in schools, how the secular humanist agenda should be advanced by the intellectual dishonesty of improperly defining the meaning of the First Amendment and working to abolish the power of the Second Amendment, and by regulating personal behavior in a way that prevents people from hiring whom the want to hire, forces acceptance of abherrant behavior as a viable alternative to moral behavior, and rejects the concept of personal responsibility under the protective blanket of the "nanny state."
That this included a great many reforms that you might label as socialist or secular-humanist, speaks volumes. That is what made Churchill the great man that he was.
It shows how a great leader can also be wholly
wrong on occaision.
That statement is a perfect demonstration of the thoughtless rhetoric that appears to infest the line of thinking to which you subscribe. If you choose to reply to me you can spare that nonsense, it is meaningless hype designed to antagonize and will get nowhere. If you have something to say, which you often do, then say it. Otherwise, save that stuff for the Rush Limbaugh listeners group. It is wasted on people that have the ability to think for themselves, and yes, that includes me.
I don't belong to a Rush group of any kind. I DO know what I speak about because I was there, in the thick, marching on Washington, and letting the democrat party feed my desire to be one of the "correct" people. You can accuse me of any rhetoric you like, but think on this: if this is meaningless, go to move on. org, and look into twhat George Soros says. Read what his supporters write, then come back here and apologize for being wrong in your assessment. I'll be happy to accept you as being better informed about the democrat core than you were when you started your post.
The audience is intellectually challenged and that provides an opportunity to shower them with buzz words and hyperbole on subjects about which they know next to nothing. It is not news, it is marketing spin. It fools many and caters mainly to those whose lack of knowledge does not equip them to challenge the bullsh!t. Fortunately there are still enough people in our country who do not believe everything that they see on TV. Hopefully you are still among them.
You can have your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Can you refute what I said about the lack of a conservative point of view on the networks I mentioned? No, you can't, because there was no conservative viewpoint before Fox. They are not number one because the audience is intellectally challenged. This one comment reveals the truth of the elitist attitude that I was making mention of earlier. Do you think that someone who is not a genius has no part in this, that only who, the people at NPR or PBS have cornered the market on solid ideas? Do you suggest that someone who watches Fox News is somehow less defineable as a thinker or a citizen because they have turned away from the almost
French reporting of so-called "public" broadcasting? Jim Lehrer has come out and said very directly that he is a liberal. Do you doubt the man's word? I'm sure that "Bias" by Berhard Goldberg is still avilable. You can read about the institutional leberalism, the socialist-leaning "hate America first" agenda of the left wing media right there from someone who lived it besides myself.
But that's just Rush Limbaugh rhetoric, right? Riiiight.
Popularity and truth are not synonyms. You evidently see the Fox Network as the place where spin ends. I see it as the place where spin begins. You are of course entitled to your opinions and I realize that if you had your way, people like me might no longer be entitled to ours.
No, popularity and truth are not synonyms, but people seek the truth as quickly as they can find it. That's why they have left the big three and CNN by the millions. The spin was institutional, and more importantly,
permanent at the other networks. Now, on Fox, you can hear the diverse opinons of several voices, and the plainly liberal viewpoint is always well represented, as it should be, just as I pointed out in my post. Can you show me that this is not a correct statement? No, you cannot.
Where, oh where, did I suggest that you should not be entitled to your opinion? If anything, I hope that we will always have liberals and their anti-American sentiments about evil big business, or the "progressive" healthcare system that Canada enjoys, which as the son of a mountie, I can tell you is "crap". On the other hand, as a liberal democrat, I hoped that a conservative voice would NEBER be heard in a public school, so that more American children could be raised to be more "sensitive" and "progressive", as European children were. Then we could cede all authority and sovereignty to the UN and instityte the goverenment we REALLY wanted: a socilaist-based system of income re-distribution and government control over every freedom granted by those misguided men (how sexist!) who wrote the Constitution.
Churchill was a great statesman, an itellectual giant, and a prolific writer (of things worth reading). The man in the White House today is none of those things. He has difficulty with the language, possesses no intellect worth mentioning, can't write, probably has difficulty reading, and could never be confused with a statesman. The similarities begin and end in political opportunism. Churchill was a leader, Bush is but a tool of those behind the scenes.
Ah, a degreed man who is successful in business and a former governor lacks the intellectual capacity to be President.
That's the core of the "elitist" part that I was talking about. Rubbish. Smash your radio and stop listening to NPR. You might as well be listening to Tokyo Rose as Terry Gross.
The issue of our country's invasion and occupation of Iraq however, leaves little doubt that we have learned much from the British and seek to emulate their imperial exploits of the past.
Nonsense, plain and simple.
I have no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and the world is better off without him, but that begs the question of whether we should or should not have invaded and occupied his country. Perhaps both the invasion and occupation are in the best long term interests of the United States, however there is little doubt that the administration has deliberately misled the American people as to the true reasons for this war.
Now THAT's the surplus1 I know and respect. I do have to argue against your conclusion about the reasons for war. As soon as Sadaam failed to give free movement to the weapons inspectors years ago, he effectively abrogated the cease fire agreement. The laundry list of violated resolutions from the UN only adds to that reason. I don't care if we NEVER find a single weapon of mass destruction, becuase our action has forever prevented that previously unknown variable from ever coming into being in Iraq. I have not been mislead at all. We have an aparent intelligence gap beause a previous two term administration gutted out intel capability and we are now suffering the consequences. I am more than hapy that our president actede as he did. My only criticism is that he wasted far too much time to wait for UN approval. This time lag let Sadaam hide and transfer what might have been an amount of WMD that would be seen as justification in your eyes and the eyes of others. That was an error on our part.
