Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

There's more evidence in your particular case. Like this gem from a few years back.

Still feel that way, Marc? Want to gun down anyone who disagrees with you? How would Jesus view that?

Uh, ya might wanna scroll down and read a few of my follow up responses to that post. But then again, maybe not. It wouldn't matter anyhow.

p.s. Good archivist job, though. I used to catch a lot of grief for daring to dredge up that old stuff at this "history" forum.

Here's one for Mr. Saari. Who woulda ever thunk it, eh? A brother thug in, um, arms! 8)

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Why are you so stuck in the events that happened 35 years ago? Boys that were born the day McGovern lost are now men Anthony. They have children, wives, lives, careers, bald spots, and they don't know/care about this stuff. Life marches on.

I was born a month later and most of the above applies. What doesn't now will before too long (assuming I lose hair - that doesn't seem to run in my family.)

Originally Posted by Stokey the Bear

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Why are you so stuck in the events that happened 35 years ago? Boys that were born the day McGovern lost are now men Anthony. They have children, wives, lives, careers, bald spots, and they don't know/care about this stuff. Life marches on.

I was born a month later and most of the above applies. What doesn't now will before too long (assuming I lose hair - that doesn't seem to run in my family.)

People are perfectly capable of looking at their surroundings and a) identifying problems and b) creating solutions without the omnipotent Boomer spirit of history.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Here's one for Mr. Saari. Who woulda ever thunk it, eh? A brother thug in, um, arms! 8)

I found this interesting:

Originally Posted by Mike Totten

It does look like Baghdad is pretty much a bad place. But I know the whole country isn’t like that, and journalists tend not to go to the places that are quiet.

..since Kurdistan is quiet, there are going to be a lot of things happening there that can’t happen in those other places. Things that are positive and things that I didn’t know were happening until I got there.

NRO: Why did you limit your travel to Kurdistan?

Totten: I couldn’t go south of Kurdistan without quite a large security detail....

Sounds like those quiet places outside of Kurdistan aren't very safe.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Linus

The trouble with Anthony's subtextual suggestion that Democrats would run better by pandering to the lesser angels of the white working class (which is to say their fear and loathing of gays, abortion, etc) is that 1) these voters would not be in play for Democrats unless they were to not only embrace a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (costing them potentially many thousands of gay and lesbian votes, and gays make up more than 5% of the Democratic base) but also embrace restrictions on abortion (and this would cost Democrats the votes of many, many single women who make up a much larger percentage of the Democratic base) 2) there is a broad if largely unstated consensus in the country that social issues should ultimately be left to the states, and that is likely to be one of the outcomes of this crisis period and 3) every credible anaylsis of the 2004 election postmortem suggests quite strongly that the persuadable voters (who might have voted for Kerry but didn't [most of these people were educated, white collar suburbanites]) swung to Bush on the basis of national security and foreign policy rather than social issues.

My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

I wonder if Brokeback Mountain is playing in Tehran?

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

It may still be that the Democrats can find a unifying demagogue (like say Mrs. Clinton) to bridge the ideological differences amongst themselves (as Mr. Nixon did the Republican Party) and usurp the GOP's role as war party. But they clearly couldn't bring themselves to do so in 2004.

As I have been saying elsewhere though, anyone who believes that the GOP today has the kind of majority Mr. Roosevelt did is simply delusional. The country is as divided as it was during the Civil War and American Revolution, and the *other* patriots - more concerned about defending and protecting the Constitution and domestic liberties (as Taft's Republicans did) than the prospect of some Islamist moron blowing himself up in a suburban shopping mall - are far greater in relative numbers this time around; they are almost half the country.

You seem to assume that this crisis will shake down like the last one; it won't.

Originally Posted by Linus

You seem to assume that this crisis will shake down like the last one; it won't.

Once again you must be reading my posts through a Fun House mirror!

So far all the trends point to this Crisis being the opposite of the last one, and akin to the American Revolution Crisis, at least in one respect: Last time it was first the depression and then the war; this time around (and as in the American Revolution Crisis) it appears to be shaping up as first the war and then the depression (see my numerous posts about the "Crash of 2019" I've been going on about for years; I know you'll find some of them in the "Objections to Generational Dynamics" thread).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

NRO: Why did you limit your travel to Kurdistan?

Totten: I couldn’t go south of Kurdistan without quite a large security detail....

Sounds like those quiet places outside of Kurdistan aren't very safe.

There are still areas of Tokyo and Berlin where even angels fear to tread. Ever been to the "combat zone" in Boston? I wouldn't advise it. Just a few months ago, 26 people were murdered in Chicago in one weedend.

I'm not sure I get your point, but, yes, Hiroshima was relatively quiet and peaceful for many years after we "obliterated" (Truman's word) Japan. That is, once the radiation dissipated. Perhaps we could drop a tactical nuke on Boston's combat zone, to make it more safe for democracy, eh?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

NRO: Why did you limit your travel to Kurdistan?

Totten: I couldn’t go south of Kurdistan without quite a large security detail....

Sounds like those quiet places outside of Kurdistan aren't very safe.

There are still areas of Tokyo and Berlin where even angels fear to tread. Ever been to the "combat zone" in Boston? I wouldn't advise it. Just a few months ago, 26 people were murdered in Chicago in one weedend.

One does not need a security detail to travel to Chicago or Boston. And one did not need a detail in 1948 Germany or Japan. Kurdistan has never had an insurgency. But then the invasion didn't drive Saddam out of Kurdistan, Saddam was already out of Kurdistan and they were running their own affairs before the invasion. The Kurdish economy has improved since 2003, but that's because we dropped our embargo against them.

Totten is implying that there are peaceful areas we don't hear about in Arab Iraq, where there have been both Sunni and Shia militias operating. But then he says he can't go even to the safe areas without a large security detail. That doesn't sound safe to me. Based on what the media have reported all along, the only consistently safe place in Iraq (safe from the insurgents and safe from Saddam before that) is Kurdistan, courtesy of the peshmerga and the USAF.

Although there are places in the South where things were pretty good at times, conditions change. Basra was a lot safer for Americans a couple of years ago than now, for example. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, Americans could travel throughout most of Iraq ithout bodyguards. That changed with Daniel Berg. Remember what happened to him for trying to do in 2004 (traveling unescorted) what lots of Americans did in 2003? Westerners stopped traveling without armed guards in 2004. That hasn't changed since then.

Totten is merely seeing the glass half full (Bushlicking Bushbot that he is), while liberals are understandably seeing it half empty.

Only trouble is, liberals run the risk of sounding like Baathist sympathizers (for the sake of peace and sefety). I'd rather be called a kool-aid drinkin' Bushlicker anyday, myself. 8)

Mr. Totten has this pair of rosy lensed specs he wears when viewing "tolerant" Muslim gangster states that are being born. As it was in Kosova it is in Kurdistan. The marxist warlords who run the latter and extort funds from their followers are seen as Progressives. The narcotic warlords who run the former and provide soporifics and whores to Old Europe are seen as Progressives.

When you wear those cranberry tinted bifocals that half-filled glass of urine looks a lot like Kool-Aid. Mr. Totten reminds one of the poor romantic idealist. Ms. Jean Brody sent of to Spain in the previous 3T. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by he of the light-red vision

Iraqi Kurdistan is more pro-American than America. People there refer to George W. Bush as “Hajji Bush” (meaning he made the Muslim pilgrimage, the hajj, to Mecca), an incredibly high honor for a Christian from Texas whom most people hate. Bill Clinton may have been America’s first “black” president. But people in at least one part of the world say Bush is the first “Muslim” president. Weird and amazing, but true.

Originally Posted by MT

The Baath regime’s agoraphobic totalitarian urban planning model will be replaced with a cityscape fit for human beings. Neighborhoods will be built for people, not cars. Tree-lined streets will be pleasant to walk along. Open public green space will beckon people outside their homes and into their community. Restaurants and shops will add the perfect grace notes. Erbil, as a city, is a hard city to love. That may not be true for very much longer.

Valentine's is the time for red, for romance, for sentimentality. One wishes to sing "Everythings up to date in Erbil city". :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:


PS: A tax policy that a Texan would love:

Originally Posted by MT

Kurdish people describe it as corrupt because the government takes a percentage of their profits, but you could look at that as taxes because there is no formal taxation in Kurdistan. It infuriates a lot of the Kurdish people, but if you think about it as corporate taxation, then it’s not that different from other places.

Cash and romance what's not to love????

Talkin' 'Bout Love

(from the Antipodes come these Valentines :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: )


Warning! Not suitable for children or romantic idealists! Warning!

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Linus

You seem to assume that this crisis will shake down like the last one; it won't.

Once again you must be reading my posts through a Fun House mirror!

So far all the trends point to this Crisis being the opposite of the last one, and akin to the American Revolution Crisis, at least in one respect: Last time it was first the depression and then the war; this time around (and as in the American Revolution Crisis) it appears to be shaping up as first the war and then the depression (see my numerous posts about the "Crash of 2019" I've been going on about for years; I know you'll find some of them in the "Objections to Generational Dynamics" thread).

That's just spin. Your point was that Democrats risk marginilization if they don't become the War Party, and my point was that the political dynamics are much different than the last crisis, and that that matters.

Unless there is some kind of political pole shift in 2008, the Democrats will remain in the opposition, but to date their grassroots support systems have been neutered by the belief that there will be a kind of "return to normal." 48% of the elecorate voted for John Kerry, and those same people support much of what is said on the dailykos and by Howard Dean is more feisty moments. The only reason they didn't nominate him as their standard bearer was the false belief in Kerry's electability.

But if electoral politics fail them (again: almost half the country) in the coming years no one should be surprised to see them take to the streets, with mass civil disobedience and protests, blue state tax revolts and general strikes. If they are smart, they will shut down the government and the economy. In any event, they are still the ones to watch. Just as the American Revolution grew out of the Whig movement dating back years (decades really) on college campuses (Harvard and Yale) and town halls, we could see a "blue velvet" insurgency grow out of moveon and the dailykos and the rest of the existing liberal infrastructure. They are as angry and motivated as the Patriots were, just not quite ready to give up on the system. Without the persistence of John Adams and a couple other key members of the Continental Congress there would have been detente with Britain in 1776, not a revolution. The Democrats, like much of the Continental Congress, have just not yet realized there is no future in detente; they will.

The Republicans have mocked the "return to normal" crowd, but they best be afraid when the 48% of the country who didn't vote for George W Bush finally realizes there will be no return to normal, and stops dismissing the idea of a popular movement as "too radical." That is when the floodgates will open, and the sparks will fly. The GOP may get what it wants abroad (at least until our Chinese banker friends pull the plug), but the Deaniacs will have their way at home. King George's hacks will fold like the pussies they are, the same way they did the last time. By the end of this crisis, the blue zone will have the autonomy and freedom to enact the liberal policies for themselves - on social issues, taxation, entitlements, and civil liberties - they have been unwilling to convince the red zone to accept, and they will no longer be burdened with having to support the economic backwater that is much of red America.

One reason I believe that we are still 3t is because things are not as set in stone as some people think. There's always a lot of "purple" in both the red and blue states. Also, an individuals choices can change over time. It is possible that the number of red states can be limited to about ten.

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006...l060216Net.htm

Originally Posted by Truth '61

One reason I believe that we are still 3t is because things are not as set in stone as some people think. There's always a lot of "purple" in both the red and blue states. Also, an individuals choices can change over time. It is possible that the number of red states can be limited to about ten.

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006...l060216Net.htm

The blue state/red state divide is as much metaphorical as actual. The truth is not more ideologically nuanced, but geographically complicated.

Urban areas and inner suburbs tend to vote for Democrats, and exurbs and rural areas tend to vote for Republicans, but that doesn't make the differences any less acute, or the anger among the blues any less real.

The point is that states and localities should have the autonomy to pursue their preferred policies, and not be compelled to pay for policies they don't support, or for largesse directed at other states. The divide is about real issues - civil liberties, foreign policy, taxes, entitlements, and social issues - and it can only be resolved through radical devolution. Maybe we will need more states than we currently have, or grant counties and towns more powers than they currently have.

(Just in case it is worth pointing out, the committed Patriots amounted to perhaps 40% of the American population in the 1770s and 1780s, and the committed Loyalists another 40% at most. The remaining twenty percent to 1/3 of the population just wanted to tend their fields and drink their tea [John Adams estimated that about a third of the population were Loyalists and a third Patriots], but that did not stop a revolution from taking place. And in many places it was really a civil war. I'm not suggesting that a shooting war is imminent, only that in some cases the existence of moderates and indifferents do not prevent conflicts, violent or otherwise.)

Linus,

Thanks for replying. Many "reds" think that they have a true long term majority based on a number of short term events. First, Gore did win the popular vote in 2000 and only lost Florida because a supreme court shaped by the 1960's "southern strategy" awarded to presidentcy to Bush. The southern strategy is dying. Demographics in America heavily favor the blues long term. Millies are the largest generation in history and show every sign of replacing their elder archtype the G.I.'s in their preference for the Democrats. It's the old farts about my age and over (read jonesers) who are mostly to blame for where we are politically right now. :cry:
Those center cities and inner suburbs that you wrote about are likely to be areas of growth as the fuel short 4t makes itself a part of life. I personally believe that one of the reasons this Bush administration has focused so much on growth through sprawl is because their political constituencies grow numberically from it. I have collegues from work who live in a monolithically Republican area and some of them really believe that they and their neighbors are the overwhelming majority of America's population. Current and future population numbers do not support their beliefs. The whole world that the Bushites know and understand is about to be swept away from them by economic change and there's nothing they can do about it.
Also, the red base itself is split between the economic conservatives and the social conservataves. The gap between the rich and poor is not totally unnoticed by religious conservatives. True, for now many of them precieve social issues like abortion as so overwhelming that they are less vocal about economic inequities than they would be otherwise. The futher we get away from the 2t mindset and into the 4t the more the outer world will become paramount in their concerns, along with everyone elses'.
Finally, for comic relief, there is the Hoover factor. It is almost unfair to call it that for unlike Bush II , Herbert Hoover had some redeeming qualities and might have handled a mild recession, had that been all it was, well. Nevertheless, if-and this is a big if, the Democrats can capture the mood of the 4t early, a blue, or mostly blue regeneracy is very possible.

Originally Posted by Linus

But if electoral politics fail them (again: almost half the country) in the coming years no one should be surprised to see them take to the streets, with mass civil disobedience and protests, blue state tax revolts and general strikes. If they are smart, they will shut down the government and the economy. In any event, they are still the ones to watch. Just as the American Revolution grew out of the Whig movement dating back years (decades really) on college campuses (Harvard and Yale) and town halls, we could see a "blue velvet" insurgency grow out of moveon and the dailykos and the rest of the existing liberal infrastructure. They are as angry and motivated as the Patriots were, just not quite ready to give up on the system. Without the persistence of John Adams and a couple other key members of the Continental Congress there would have been detente with Britain in 1776, not a revolution. The Democrats, like much of the Continental Congress, have just not yet realized there is no future in detente; they will.

Very interesting analysis!

Originally Posted by Linus

That's just spin. Your point was that Democrats risk marginilization if they don't become the War Party, and my point was that the political dynamics are much different than the last crisis, and that that matters.

Unless there is some kind of political pole shift in 2008, the Democrats will remain in the opposition, but to date their grassroots support systems have been neutered by the belief that there will be a kind of "return to normal." 48% of the elecorate voted for John Kerry, and those same people support much of what is said on the dailykos and by Howard Dean is more feisty moments. The only reason they didn't nominate him as their standard bearer was the false belief in Kerry's electability.

But if electoral politics fail them (again: almost half the country) in the coming years no one should be surprised to see them take to the streets, with mass civil disobedience and protests, blue state tax revolts and general strikes. If they are smart, they will shut down the government and the economy. In any event, they are still the ones to watch. Just as the American Revolution grew out of the Whig movement dating back years (decades really) on college campuses (Harvard and Yale) and town halls, we could see a "blue velvet" insurgency grow out of moveon and the dailykos and the rest of the existing liberal infrastructure. They are as angry and motivated as the Patriots were, just not quite ready to give up on the system. Without the persistence of John Adams and a couple other key members of the Continental Congress there would have been detente with Britain in 1776, not a revolution. The Democrats, like much of the Continental Congress, have just not yet realized there is no future in detente; they will.

The Republicans have mocked the "return to normal" crowd, but they best be afraid when the 48% of the country who didn't vote for George W Bush finally realizes there will be no return to normal, and stops dismissing the idea of a popular movement as "too radical." That is when the floodgates will open, and the sparks will fly. The GOP may get what it wants abroad (at least until our Chinese banker friends pull the plug), but the Deaniacs will have their way at home. King George's hacks will fold like the pussies they are, the same way they did the last time. By the end of this crisis, the blue zone will have the autonomy and freedom to enact the liberal policies for themselves - on social issues, taxation, entitlements, and civil liberties - they have been unwilling to convince the red zone to accept, and they will no longer be burdened with having to support the economic backwater that is much of red America.

There are many interesting possibilities here.

Remember how we spitefully added "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and "In God We Trust" to our paper money three years later? These things were done, of course, in order to put out there, front and center, the differences between ourselves and our adversaries at the time - the Godless, atheistic Communists. What if the left hits on the same idea, promoting feminism, gay rights, and other facets of the liberal social agenda in an effort to show how different we are from the "Islamofascists" - a term coined by neoconservatives of the Victor Davis Hanson variety?

But in order to do this, the left would have to drop their knee-jerk opposition to the war(s), otherwise they would come across as hypocrites; but if they did become a "loyal opposition" on the war they could then turn around and plausibly accuse the right of hypocrisy, if not outright disloyalty (assuming the Christian Right remains an integral part of the latter's coalition - the left's point then being that Christian fundamentalism differs only in degree, and not in kind, from Islamic fundamentalism, just as Cold War-era conservatives attempted to assert that New Deal-Great Society liberalism differed only in degree and not in kind from Communism).

A less cheerful permutation is a "far left-far right" alliance, formed over the war, which many in the latter oppose, mainly due to their residual anti-Semitism; combined with a consistent and generalized xenophobia (over economic issues on the left and "cultural" issues on the right), this could morph into the "New American Fascism" S&H warned us about.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

A less cheerful permutation is a "far left-far right" alliance, formed over the war, which many in the latter oppose, mainly due to their residual anti-Semitism; combined with a consistent and generalized xenophobia (over economic issues on the left and "cultural" issues on the right), this could morph into the "New American Fascism" S&H warned us about.

No offensive intended, but how is what you've been generally proposing over the past year or more differ categorically from such a position?

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Linus

That's just spin. Your point was that Democrats risk marginilization if they don't become the War Party, and my point was that the political dynamics are much different than the last crisis, and that that matters.

Unless there is some kind of political pole shift in 2008, the Democrats will remain in the opposition, but to date their grassroots support systems have been neutered by the belief that there will be a kind of "return to normal." 48% of the elecorate voted for John Kerry, and those same people support much of what is said on the dailykos and by Howard Dean is more feisty moments. The only reason they didn't nominate him as their standard bearer was the false belief in Kerry's electability.

But if electoral politics fail them (again: almost half the country) in the coming years no one should be surprised to see them take to the streets, with mass civil disobedience and protests, blue state tax revolts and general strikes. If they are smart, they will shut down the government and the economy. In any event, they are still the ones to watch. Just as the American Revolution grew out of the Whig movement dating back years (decades really) on college campuses (Harvard and Yale) and town halls, we could see a "blue velvet" insurgency grow out of moveon and the dailykos and the rest of the existing liberal infrastructure. They are as angry and motivated as the Patriots were, just not quite ready to give up on the system. Without the persistence of John Adams and a couple other key members of the Continental Congress there would have been detente with Britain in 1776, not a revolution. The Democrats, like much of the Continental Congress, have just not yet realized there is no future in detente; they will.

The Republicans have mocked the "return to normal" crowd, but they best be afraid when the 48% of the country who didn't vote for George W Bush finally realizes there will be no return to normal, and stops dismissing the idea of a popular movement as "too radical." That is when the floodgates will open, and the sparks will fly. The GOP may get what it wants abroad (at least until our Chinese banker friends pull the plug), but the Deaniacs will have their way at home. King George's hacks will fold like the pussies they are, the same way they did the last time. By the end of this crisis, the blue zone will have the autonomy and freedom to enact the liberal policies for themselves - on social issues, taxation, entitlements, and civil liberties - they have been unwilling to convince the red zone to accept, and they will no longer be burdened with having to support the economic backwater that is much of red America.

There are many interesting possibilities here.

Remember how we spitefully added "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and "In God We Trust" to our paper money three years later? These things were done, of course, in order to put out there, front and center, the differences between ourselves and our adversaries at the time - the Godless, atheistic Communists. What if the left hits on the same idea, promoting feminism, gay rights, and other facets of the liberal social agenda in an effort to show how different we are from the "Islamofascists" - a term coined by neoconservatives of the Victor Davis Hanson variety?

But in order to do this, the left would have to drop their knee-jerk opposition to the war(s), otherwise they would come across as hypocrites; but if they did become a "loyal opposition" on the war they could then turn around and plausibly accuse the right of hypocrisy, if not outright disloyalty (assuming the Christian Right remains an integral part of the latter's coalition - the left's point then being that Christian fundamentalism differs only in degree, and not in kind, from Islamic fundamentalism, just as Cold War-era conservatives attempted to assert that New Deal-Great Society liberalism differed only in degree and not in kind from Communism).

A less cheerful permutation is a "far left-far right" alliance, formed over the war, which many in the latter oppose, mainly due to their residual anti-Semitism; combined with a consistent and generalized xenophobia (over economic issues on the left and "cultural" issues on the right), this could morph into the "New American Fascism" S&H warned us about.

You misunderstand the character and nature of the left's opposition to the war in Iraq, and even (if they don't necessarily admit it) the broader so-called war on terror. As I said, many of them still believe this is a temporary disruption of the post-Cold War peace and prosperity, and that happy days are just around the corner again. Eventually they will figure out that is not the case, and transform themselves into a serious opposition just as the Republicans did in the later 1930s.

And like the GOP of the era, today's left is simply more concerned about domestic liberty than foreign adversaries. FDR and Truman were both rabid anti-semites, and Robert A Taft not only had a number of close Jewish friends and associates (which was less rare among Republicans, especially blue blood Northern Republicans - who were still regarded as the heirs of the abolitionist tradition - than among Democrats of the era; Democrats today are still seen as the heirs to the Civil Rights movement, and the liberalization that opened elite institutions to Jews and others), but was one of the few politicians of the period to speak out on behalf of both African-Americans and Jews. Having seen the horrors of war up close though (in World War I), and being a good student of history, he understood that war and even the preparation for war was often a threat to America's most cherished republican and democratic values; that is why he and other conservatives often opposed entrance into the European war.

As far as Democrats today go, a strong majority of American Jews still vote consistently Democratic; that should tell you something.

And the reason that the opposition is much more robust this time around is that the Islamofascists, unlike Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, are not an existential threat to America. This doesn't mean Democrats will be able to convince 52% of the country that their chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are slightly less than being mauled to death by an escaped polar bear, but it doesn't make it any less true either.

I do think there is the possibility of paleocons, libertarians, leftists, and some liberals and moderates making common cause, but only if a centrist like Hillary Clinton (or the Republican equivalent) is elected, and shows the same disrespect for civil liberties and domestic freedoms more generally as Mr. Bush. They will hardly be the agents of fascism though. They could be the ones (rather than the Deaniacs, many of whom could simply become Hillary trolls) to ultimately remake America into a looser federation of states.

Originally Posted by Linus

And the reason that the opposition is much more robust this time around is that the Islamofascists, unlike Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, are not an existential threat to America. This doesn't mean Democrats will be able to convince 52% of the country that their chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are slightly less than being mauled to death by an escaped polar bear, but it doesn't make it any less true either.

Here is where I actually don't fault the GOP position, as such. I am not so sure they are not an "existential threat". A loose nuke in Jihadi hands could vaporize my city, or any city in our nation. I consider that an issue of existence, to some degree anyway!

What I object to is their agenda since 9/11: It is clear to me that national security is NOT the priority to these despicable GOP "leaders"of ours, but rather a cover for something else. And then there are the folks who mindlessly follow these @ssholes out of a sense of patriotism. It's a damn shame all around.

Therefore, I do think the Jihadi's are a very, very serious and real threat. I just think the neocon/theocon/plutocon axis, at least at the top, cares about as much about America just as the postmodern/multicult/neomarxist axis. One difference is at least the latter are more honest to themselves and everyone else about where they stand.

To hell with all of them. They can all go to the Taliban for all I care.

It's a losing thing if the Democrats try to "out-nigger" the Republicans on foreign policy/defense. We need to go further along in the generational sense before a large enough section of the public is willing to change. I think Linus' comparison of the GOP of the 30's to the current state of the Democratic Party is an apt one.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Linus

And the reason that the opposition is much more robust this time around is that the Islamofascists, unlike Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, are not an existential threat to America. This doesn't mean Democrats will be able to convince 52% of the country that their chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are slightly less than being mauled to death by an escaped polar bear, but it doesn't make it any less true either.

Here is where I actually don't fault the GOP position, as such. I am not so sure they are not an "existential threat". A loose nuke in Jihadi hands could vaporize my city, or any city in our nation. I consider that an issue of existence, to some degree anyway!

What I object to is their agenda since 9/11: It is clear to me that national security is NOT the priority to these despicable GOP "leaders"of ours, but rather a cover for something else. And then there are the folks who mindlessly follow these @ssholes out of a sense of patriotism. It's a damn shame all around.

Therefore, I do think the Jihadi's are a very, very serious and real threat. I just think the neocon/theocon/plutocon axis, at least at the top, cares about as much about America just as the postmodern/multicult/neomarxist axis. One difference is at least the latter are more honest to themselves and everyone else about where they stand.

To hell with all of them. They can all go to the Taliban for all I care.

Sure, if they're able to acquire nuclear weapons. But these things tend to have a return address, and anyone who sells them to terror networks more likely than not understands they would face extinction should they be used. Mutually Assured Destruction may not be effective with Islamo-fascist crazies willing to blow themselves and an entire city up, but the WMDs must come from somewhere, and likely a state; MAD is effective with states.

I agree with both your assessment of the neoconservatives and their own rhetoric. I don't believe the corrupt, authoritarian order in the Arab-Muslim world is sustainable, and I believe democratization and liberalization is something like inevitable (although I do think it will turn out differently than the neocons imagine, with existing Arab states breaking apart into multiple countries) which is why I favor energy independence and distancing ourselves from Arab-Muslim civilization in the coming years.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Linus

And the reason that the opposition is much more robust this time around is that the Islamofascists, unlike Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, are not an existential threat to America. This doesn't mean Democrats will be able to convince 52% of the country that their chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are slightly less than being mauled to death by an escaped polar bear, but it doesn't make it any less true either.

Here is where I actually don't fault the GOP position, as such. I am not so sure they are not an "existential threat". A loose nuke in Jihadi hands could vaporize my city, or any city in our nation. I consider that an issue of existence, to some degree anyway!

What I object to is their agenda since 9/11: It is clear to me that national security is NOT the priority to these despicable GOP "leaders"of ours, but rather a cover for something else. And then there are the folks who mindlessly follow these @ssholes out of a sense of patriotism. It's a damn shame all around.

Therefore, I do think the Jihadi's are a very, very serious and real threat. I just think the neocon/theocon/plutocon axis, at least at the top, cares about as much about America just as the postmodern/multicult/neomarxist axis. One difference is at least the latter are more honest to themselves and everyone else about where they stand.

To hell with all of them. They can all go to the Taliban for all I care.

To quote a Boomerism, RIGHT ON! Though I've sometimes felt that the issue was one where the Repubs were getting it wrong, while the Dems didn't get it at all (as with several other issues I care about.)

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Linus

And the reason that the opposition is much more robust this time around is that the Islamofascists, unlike Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, are not an existential threat to America. This doesn't mean Democrats will be able to convince 52% of the country that their chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are slightly less than being mauled to death by an escaped polar bear, but it doesn't make it any less true either.

Here is where I actually don't fault the GOP position, as such. I am not so sure they are not an "existential threat". A loose nuke in Jihadi hands could vaporize my city, or any city in our nation. I consider that an issue of existence, to some degree anyway!

What I object to is their agenda since 9/11: It is clear to me that national security is NOT the priority to these despicable GOP "leaders"of ours, but rather a cover for something else. And then there are the folks who mindlessly follow these @ssholes out of a sense of patriotism. It's a damn shame all around.

Therefore, I do think the Jihadi's are a very, very serious and real threat. I just think the neocon/theocon/plutocon axis, at least at the top, cares about as much about America just as the postmodern/multicult/neomarxist axis. One difference is at least the latter are more honest to themselves and everyone else about where they stand.

To hell with all of them. They can all go to the Taliban for all I care.

To quote a Boomerism, RIGHT ON! Though I've sometimes felt that the issue was one where the Repubs were getting it wrong, while the Dems didn't get it at all (as with several other issues I care about.)

But, IMHO, the Dem's are currently less enthralled to the PoMo axis than the GOP is to the theo-neo-pluto one. The latter now basically controls the party, whereas there are plenty of non-PoMo's among the Dems (and no-one can said to be "in control" in any real way).