It's an interesting question. Is it preferable to have a dictator who engages in brutal repression but does not attack other countries or a democratically elected government that supports terrorism? Is it better to have an authoritarian leader who is afraid of the CIA or an elected leader who worships Castro and would love to have nuclear missiles aimed at us? There has been an odd role reversal in that Bush, supposedly a conservative Republican, is now advocating the position that liberals argued for decades. On this, like a lot of other issues, Bush is badly out of step with the majority of his own party.
Again, show me where he states that Iraq was invaded in order to illustrate the Left's folly. You keep avoiding this. Why? Good grief, read the first sentence in his article, for Chrissakes, and then the first sentence in the fifth paragraph. Oh heck, since you have a habit of not reading articles and then taking them entirely out of context, I'll do it for you: Does that clear things up for you? Oh really? Seems to me that it is not a small percent at all that believe that. Opinion only.
"You cannot deal with any problem in life -- from the most personal to the most macro -- by engaging in wishful thinking and denying reality." Yes, much better to engage in denying thinking and wishfull reality. ( see the "bush hits it out of park thread")
Yeah, thanks for pointing out that that thread is full of Leftists who don't think and do not live in reality.
hapaboy, do you actually have an opinion of your own or are you merely regurgitating what you hear from these political secular media sources? By evidence of the majority of your posts, which consists of mostly starting posts that bash the left or finding ways to interject your negative views of it (many times in the middle of threads that don't even have anything to do with partisan politics to begin with), I would say the latter. Don't take my word for it; click on your name and count. I find that so many of those that identify themselves with being republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, left wing or right wing have very little knowledge of what that all exactly means. Its just socially fashionable at the moment because they like to be on the "winning" side or personally gratifying to root for the underdog. Whats so conservative about astronomical increases in deficit spending? Whats so liberal about federalizing public education? Whats so conservative about starting a second front in a war when the objectives of the first front is still incomplete? Whats so liberal about forcing employers to hire based on race and gender? Geez! The damn list could go on for several posts. My point is all the political ideologies are so diluted these days from so much pandering that they have very little meaning. They care more about whether the brainwashed masses actually believe that they have credibility than actually having any. Listening to and watching the talking heads that spew nonsense thats justified and grounded on nothing more than a discrediting effort of the opposing side is frivolous. Cutting, pasting, and regurgitating their propaganda is...well.....sick. You need help. You do realize that they make medication for this?
last week on the 27th I wrote the following: This blunder could work out to be a master stroke for Bush. In fact it will turn out to be a win win win. No matter what happens, it could also be a nail in the coffin of that failure we call liberal thinking. It just so happens that it took Prager longer to think about what I was saying. In that previous post I also noted my concern that this really may not have been a blunder even though Bush is a dope. I have also stated many times Bush' dad is liberal elistist and that Bush is an opportunist who needed to clean up his party boy image. Rove just helped him disguise himself. But no matter how you slice it. Pie in the sky P.C. liberal crap is proving out to be baloney. Instead of attacking the messenger how about contering the points Prager stated. If find some them to be accurate. For instance instead of arguing about whether Bush purposefully exposed Pali desire to destroy Isreal by setting up a democratic election. (We all know Bush alone is not a smart guy and some in his administration may have been duped, but I am sure not all.) A much better question is did this democratic process expose Muslim's or at least the Palis desire to destroy Isreal. Consequently making fools of liberals like Spielberg.
Who was being quoted? It rings true. I would add that problems are not solved at the level of thought that created them. JohnnyK
Here is a small sample: -- Support for terror represents a tiny sliver of the Muslim world. -- All cultures are essentially morally equivalent. -- The United Nations is a wonderful institution and the best hope of mankind. -- Men and women are basically the same. -- It makes no difference whether children are raised by a loving man and woman or by two loving parents of the same sex. -- Violent criminals in our society are pushed into crime by socioeconomic circumstances, not because of their own flawed characters and values. -- War is not the answer. To me these are points worthy of debate. I will get it stated. 1. The pali election, suport for OBL and the apparent strengthening of the Iranian leadership seems to indicate much wider support of a desire for the destruction of Isreal amoung Middle Eastern Muslims. Which also seems to dovetail into support for terrorism against any country support Isreals right to exist. 2. From a Western point of view, this statement seems to very true. All cultures are not morally equivalent. Any culture supporting genocide of another can not be morally equivalent... If you believe in any morals structure at all. Otherwise might makes right. If you believe that then the U.S. should be entitled to all that oil. 3. Is a question that really can not be answered. Because the U.N. in theory is not the U.N. in practice. In a way it is a Utopian ideal that is as flawed as communism in practice. 4. In my mind Men and women and more importantly boys and girls are different and should be treated differently. Different but equal would be an improvement over pretending they are the same. It does not work in the classroom. And it does not work in certain jobs. I am against the so called glass ceilings. 5. Violent criminals shoud be treated like violent criminals.
Yes I have an opinion of my own. Thanks for asking. Well, you'd be wrong. But thanks for your opinion. Nice that you took the time to go through all of my posts and count. You obviously have a lot of free time on your hands. Anyway, I already know what I posted. But thanks for your opinion. Thanks for your opinion, but you've got it wrong. My political views have nothing to do with being "socially fashionable" or rooting "for the underdog." And you're welcome to to make such a list over several posts. I agree with you up to a point. Yes, certainly many ideologies are diluted and pander to the lowest common denominator. However, I believe there are certain truths that, as the Declaration states, are self-evident, and rise above all the bullshit. Gee riserburn, a glance at your posts shows that at least half have been made in response to threads I started. So who is sick here? Me for starting them or you for being so involved in them? There's also a simple process you can follow that will make your life a lot easier. It's called the Ignore button. Simply stop reading what I post and you won't have to undergo all this trauma. Anyway, it's been fun. Thanks for your opinion, misguided as it is. I'm sure I'll be hearing more from you.
Great. Now we have Praeger, although he is not the only one, insisting that ALL Leftists hold the exact same views. What garbage! No members' of one group all hold the same views. Leftists are as different from each other, as Republicans are from each other, etc. What he claims 'all Leftists' believe: -- Support for terror represents a tiny sliver of the Muslim world. Not true. Sure, some think this way. Others know this isn't true. But when people tell me that all Moslems are terrorists, etc., I have to tell them to, shall we say, to 'reconsider'? Many, many do hate Israel; others are trying to be more fair. -- All cultures are essentially morally equivalent. What crap! For years many Leftists have condemned societies, like the "old" South Africa, where Blacks were treated, legally and morally, as inferior. I personally know many Leftists who were instrumental in beginning (and continuing) the movement in the US and elsewhere to combat domestic violence. And speaking on this topic, why haven't Bush & his cronies done anything to condemn the way women are treated in countries which they consider to be their allies, like Saudi Arabia, where they can't drive cars, etc., or other countries where they can't even vote. -- The United Nations is a wonderful institution and the best hope of mankind. Huh?!!! I have never heard this, from any Leftist. Somebody must be smoking something mighty powerful to be saying this. -- Men and women are basically the same. No, of course they're not. But many Leftists feel that, for too long, women have been given the short shaft in many situations. Oh yes - and many less women than men are serial killers, are likely to kill their own spouses, or to commit violent crimes. Sure - the numbers are rising, but not nearly equal. -- It makes no difference whether children are raised by a loving man and woman or by two loving parents of the same sex. Very interesting. I find that some right-wing people love to talk about "family values", that a family should have both a Mom and a Dad, etc. EXCEPT when they themselves are divorced! THen it all goes out the window. Same with treating GAys & Lesbians equally. Along these same lines, no one seems to mention the shocking numbers of children in this country, not to speak of in this world, who have no homes, who need to be adopted. I, myself, have adopted a child. Is it better to let these children grow up without ANY parents at all? To have no real family? In addition, I have met tons of single people who have adopted children; yet I don't hear people who condemn gay people adopting also condemn single people who adopt. What is important is that children have parent(s) who LOVE them, and care for them. -- Violent criminals in our society are pushed into crime by socioeconomic circumstances, not because of their own flawed characters and values. Leftists, like everyone else, feel different ways on this issue. Recently, on the O'Reilly show, he continued to publicize a Vermont Judge who sentenced a horrific child molester to only 60 days in prison. O'Reilly himself commented recently that this was a case in which both Leftists and Right-wing people were outraged at what the Judge did. All I'm trying to say is that none of us should paint a group of people as all believing the same thing. That is easy, but simplistic, and isn't the truth. Instead of condemning a particular group, maybe we should instead focus on issues that are important. For instance, I believe that Hamas is dangerous. WE can talk about that without denigrating all members of a particular group.