Hey, guess what! I just remembered I have a real life.
I like it an aweful lot. I have a wonderful husband, 3 beautiful children. I live 2 miles from the beach. And it's summer!!
And we aren't in the 4T yet, so, I am going to go live whats left of the good life. Because at this point in time, it's really good :smile: And uh, maybe it'll all work out in the end, who knows.
This will be my last post. Bye.

And with that, she's gone, with only the parting words of the Hero of the Democrat party to bid you farewell....- J.F.K.- said,

On 2002-07-12 17:24, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-07-12 12:20, cbailey wrote:
Excuse me, but could someone explain what the "Third Way" political label is? When I click for more information I get a page of the New Republic, and a subscription form.

I need to know, because according to the test, I are one.

Third Way was a term popular in the media about 3 years ago to refer to a vague "pro-business liberal" position. It was mainly used to refer to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and to the U.K.'s Tony Blair. The New Republic magazine is properly characterized as Neoconservative so I am not quite sure how they fit here. I haven't seen the term Third Way used in that context for a couple of years now.

This should not be confused with the political party in the U.K. also known as Third Way. They have a very interesting combination of positions: To the left on economics, right of center on social issues, libertarian on civil liberties, isolationist on foreign policy, pro-ecology, somewhat critical of technology advancing unchecked, and favoring political and economic decentralization. Right now they are a small fringe group and appear to be all over the map at first glance, but their particular combination makes perfect sense if you think about it.

I doubt this second Third Way was what this political quiz was referring to. If it was, Third Way would have rated a lot higher than it did with me.

Okay, I got Neo-Conservative but "The New Republic" seems quite leftist to me. Maybe someone who did not get Neo-Conservative *or* Third Way is not the best expert on where The New Republic stands?

On 2002-07-12 17:38, justmom wrote:
Hey, guess what! I just remembered I have a real life.
I like it an aweful lot. I have a wonderful husband, 3 beautiful children. I live 2 miles from the beach. And it's summer!!
And we aren't in the 4T yet, so, I am going to go live whats left of the good life. Because at this point in time, it's really good :smile: And uh, maybe it'll all work out in the end, who knows.
This will be my last post. Bye.

And with that, she's gone, with only the parting words of the Hero of the Democrat party to bid you farewell....- J.F.K.- said,

I, on the other hand, am a 15-year-old living 6 miles from the nearest town and without a driver's license, and therefore have no life. I'll be sticking around for a while...

On 2002-07-12 17:00, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

1. Radical
2. Liberal
3. Left-libertarian
4. Paleo-libertarian
5. Paleoconservative
6. Libertarian
7. Third Way
8. Centrist
9. Conservative
10. Neoconservative

Sounds about right. I like a lot of what the paleocons say, but disagree with the neocons almost across the board.

Very interesting, R. You appear to be the first "tester" who is actually starting from the Libertarian Left. I know there are others (Robert Reed, for example) but we have not seen them post yet. It still appears to be the exception to the rule however. Your primary is the Libertarian Left and your meld is with the Libertarian Right. However I don't think you come across as the stereptypical resident of the Libertarian Left which is why it is so helpful for others, particularly on the Right, to hear your views. The ease with which realignment can take place is made clear.

On 2002-07-12 14:12, David '47 wrote:
And another quick note to our posters from the right, who have demonstrated the correct procedure for common defense - reserving all their best invective for each other.


Bravo, I think.

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that, on your side of the aisle, any notion of character and veracity are utterly meaningless when attempting to advance your agenda.

Don't get me wrong, that's ok. Do whatever you think it takes, my friend. That you might think that the American people can be fooled, can be lied to, can be manipulated by spreading falsehood and the "politics of bad faith" is nothing new.

But I cannot believe, even in my moments of weakness, that this kind of politics is what the party of FDR was really all about in 1933 (fourteen years before you were born).

Perhaps I'm wrong... perhaps lies, slander and dirty Clintonesque politics will someday make the American people believe in government "veracity" again. But I rather doubt it.


p.s. I believe it was in 1994 that Candice Bergen reluctantly agreed with Dan Quayle.


Main Entry: ve?rac?i?ty
Pronunciation: v&-'ra-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: circa 1623
1 : devotion to the truth : TRUTHFULNESS
2 : power of conveying or perceiving truth
3 : conformity with truth or fact : ACCURACY

Stonewall Patton defends,
"No, I am definitely not a liar (and you feel threatened by this fact, hence the vitriol you constantly post) and it is an absolutely phenomonal act of hubris for you to consider yourself even minimally equipped to determine who is a reprobate and who is not. Do you allow God any authority in any matter whatsoever? Or must He always defer to you?" (emphasis mine)

Ah yes, the final refuge of the scoundrel: Who are you to judge me? Funny how Mr. Patton is so very sure that so and so is a Nazi, a "Joseph Goebbels," a piece of "human garbage", but call Stonewall on his lies and slander, and suddenly he demands to bring God into the fray!

"Do you allow God any authority in any matter whatsoever?" Mr. Patton asks. Yeah, Mr. Patton, I believe that God is truth, and that those who love God, love the truth. But those that don't love God, or the truth, are very adept at lying and slandering... like you.

"You shall know them by their fruit," Jesus said. "A bad tree brings forth bad fruit."

Stonewall, you're a "bad tree" that lies, and the love of the truth is not in you.

No, Mr. Lamb. C. Bergin made that statement recently to a gathering of television critics in Pasadena, Calif. She was promoting her new TV series "Candace Checks It Out".

Oh for Murphy's sake, go here, if you like the whole damn story!

On 2002-07-11 17:37, justmom wrote:

On 2002-07-11 16:28, Justin '77 wrote:

BTW... Did *anybody* say "Yes, decriminalize cocaine?"

Yes. I'd add to that list heroin, PCP, ecstasy, mescaline, LSD, elephant tranquilizers, methamphetamines, toad sweat, and basically whatever else people feel the need to eat/drink/sniff/inject/smoke/absorb into their bodies.

And if you did say yes, have you ever lived with, or, been the victim of someone elses cocain use?

Well, since I've used it myself and been around others who have, I guess the answer is 'yes'. I've also lived with raging alcoholics and other people who were just basic cruel assholes. Give me the coke freaks any day.


Also, I wonder what you mean by 'victim of someone else's cocaine use'. The only victim of cocaine use qua use is an unborn child born physically addicted. That's a bad deal, and a generally shitty thing to do to a kid. That said, boozing pregnant is pretty damn bad for a kid, too, yet somehow French women have managed to have normal, healthy kids while not completely abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy for centuries. I don't see why moderate amphetamine usage need be any different, and have neither seen nor heard of any studies to the contrary.

The *only* victims are those of the unborn?
Surely, you've momentarily forgotten, the homes broken into. The store owners who've had their property broken into and stolen, because someone wanted to get more money for their next high. The sports teams who've lost their championships because someone on their team was using?

All of those happen *BECAUSE* cocaine is illegal! If it were decriminalized it would be more easily accessible, safer (as safe as cocaine can be) and cheaper; and the sports teams would not lose their championships!

Never mind... I realized that Justin '77 already said what I was going to say much better than I could in 30 seconds

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Agent 24601984 on 2002-07-12 21:12 ]</font>

On 2002-07-12 10:24, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-12 08:45, firemind wrote:
Marc:

I seem to remember (though I could be wrong) that Newt was one of the Republicans Stonewall liked, along with Reagan.

No, I do not like Newt. In fact I do not believe that I have addressed Newt in any way on this forum so there is nothing for you to "remember" as far as I can tell.

I think you made a post or two about the betrayal of the "Republican Revolution"; even if you didn't explicitly say you hated Newt I could imply it pretty easily...

"The New Republic was leftist, at one time...40 or 50 years ago. The Neoconservative movement is led by former leftists who broke with the left during the last 2T and joined the conservatives, over their support of the Vietnam War. This happened because the left..."


Write a book, Mr. Gregory, I'm sure it'll make much more sense. :lol:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-12 21:23 ]</font>

Yeah, I know. I'm a "work in progress," kinda like the cycle, kinda like Generations, kinda unlike Mr. Saari (who I love dearly).

Truth is, I got too many kids. They drive me batty. :lol:

On 2002-07-12 21:53, Marc Lamb wrote:


Yeah, I know. I'm a "work in progress," kinda like the cycle, kinda like Generations, kinda unlike Mr. Saari (who I love dearly).

Truth is, I got too many kids. They drive me batty. :lol:

How many kids do you have and how old are they? You don't talk about them much.

On 2002-07-12 21:12, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-07-12 18:07, AlexMnWi wrote:

Okay, I got Neo-Conservative but "The New Republic" seems quite leftist to me. Maybe someone who did not get Neo-Conservative *or* Third Way is not the best expert on where The New Republic stands?

The New Republic was leftist, at one time...40 or 50 years ago. The Neoconservative movement is led by former leftists who broke with the left during the last 2T and joined the conservatives, over their support of the Vietnam War. This happened because the left during the 1950s (GI-generation led) had by and large been supportive of the Cold War, but during the 1960s the "New Left" (led by late wave Silents with the rank and file mostly Boomers) came on the scene and turned antiwar and anti-draft. Unlike some other conservatives, whose main issues are moral and social issues (the Christian Right), or economic deregulation (free market think tanks), the Neoconservatives' big issue is a hawkish foreign policy. The New Republic was at the center of this movement.

There is an article on who the Neoconservatives are, at http://www.iraqwar.org/point3.htm

It's written by paleocons and not very sympathetic.

But some neo-conservatives were never democrats. Are there two kinds of neo-conservatives? Or did the formerly democratic part move over to third way in the 90s?

On 2002-07-12 21:12, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-07-12 18:07, AlexMnWi wrote:

Okay, I got Neo-Conservative but "The New Republic" seems quite leftist to me. Maybe someone who did not get Neo-Conservative *or* Third Way is not the best expert on where The New Republic stands?

The New Republic was leftist, at one time...40 or 50 years ago. The Neoconservative movement is led by former leftists who broke with the left during the last 2T and joined the conservatives, over their support of the Vietnam War. This happened because the left during the 1950s (GI-generation led) had by and large been supportive of the Cold War, but during the 1960s the "New Left" (led by late wave Silents with the rank and file mostly Boomers) came on the scene and turned antiwar and anti-draft. Unlike some other conservatives, whose main issues are moral and social issues (the Christian Right), or economic deregulation (free market think tanks), the Neoconservatives' big issue is a hawkish foreign policy. The New Republic was at the center of this movement.

There is an article on who the Neoconservatives are, at http://www.iraqwar.org/point3.htm

It's written by paleocons and not very sympathetic.

Not sympathetic at all. Anyway, it says that neocons are mostly former liberals who became republicans with the reagan election. I was born 6 years into Reagans term. Yet, I get Neo-Conservative on the test. It doesnt make sense.

Ms. Susan wonders,
"How many kids do you have and how old are they? You don't talk about them much."

You must have missed my previous brag (in March, I believe), Ms. Susan...


Ms. Genser wonders,
"How many little Millies do you have? Ages and gender? Just curious -- I'm wondering if any are close in age to my Millie."

Four little millie Lambs, Ms. Genser. Oh, and they're so cuuuute. :smile:

Emily, age nine, is a third grader. She is much like her mischievious mother. And very stubborn, as well as self-willed. But very bright. In the past two Terra Novas she scored in the top one percent nationally in both math and science (a little brag there).

Erin, age eight, is a second grader. She is much like her level-headed, sweet and innocent father. :smile: She is coy, petite (Emily is more of the mack-truck variety), and a Lamb through and through. And she, too, is very bright having scored in the top one percent in the nation on reading and writing in her Terra Nova this year (a little more brag there).

Elle, age four, is the first-born twin. Gorgeous and stunning eyes that grab and hold you. Exceptionally quiet and reserved, except when crossed, of course. Elle has the knack of suddenly saying the most profound things when least expected. I fear the most trouble in the future from this quiet one. :smile:

Nathaniel, age four, was the one I hoped for, of course. I always feared getting a little wimpy boy, though. Nathaniel is anything but that; he is all macho and has a great laugh that comes straight out of his belly. His facial expressions are incredibly pronouced without being exaggerated. And he likes machines, tractors, and things that grunt... :smile:

My older girls watched the Clinton saga unfold. I'll never forget a six year-old Emily calling to Erin to come quick, The Republican with white hair, that lies all the time was on the TV again. :smile: The twins, of course, watched the towers fall. They had long passed the bed-wetting stage... but both wet the bed for three straight nights following that disaster.

I can only think of how I reacted to the JFK thing when I was a kid... and all the stuff that came after. We are all marked in ways this that. Thus they are in my prayers as such: For theirs is the kingdom.


:smile:

OK, Mr. Lamb, rather than ignore you here, I thought I would respond just in case you are uncertain what some others might think of you when they do ignore you. But I am not going to make a habit of this. I'll just say what needs to be said and move on.

On 2002-07-12 20:40, Marc Lamb wrote:

Patton wrote:

No, I am definitely not a liar (and you feel threatened by this fact, hence the vitriol you constantly post) and it is an absolutely phenomonal act of hubris for you to consider yourself even minimally equipped to determine who is a reprobate and who is not. Do you allow God any authority in any matter whatsoever? Or must He always defer to you?

Ah yes, the final refuge of the scoundrel: Who are you to judge me?

No. Once again you have resorted to redirection presumably because you cannot defend yourself by confronting the argument directly. Nowhere in my post did I ask Who are you to judge me?. Feel free to judge me, I encourage it. I make an effort to be logically consistent and fair and impartial in my dealings and I know that it shows because people have been appreciative of my honesty and integrity throughout my life (even when they have hated my politics...hehe). They know that I will not take advantage of them or use them in any way. I am trusted.

When someone reacts negatively to my efforts to prevent people from being used by others to their end, that tells me all that I need to know about that person. Among other things, it tells me that their judgment of me should be ignored because it is not in any way objective or founded upon truth. It is solely aimed at knocking me down by any means, usually dishonest, so that the judger no longer feels himself exposed and subject to guilt such that he can continue on his merry way placing himself above others and using them to his end without attention being drawn to his evil ways. So continue maligning me with your conscious lies and vitriol, Mr. Lamb. It tells the rest of the world everything they need to know about you. Can you understand why I pity you? I really do. I do not hate you, I pity you.

Getting back to what I truly asked, it is how on earth are you even remotely equipped to know who is beyond redemption in the eyes of God? You used the term "reprobate." It means excluded by God from heaven. We are told that God's forgiveness is almost limitless so it is curious, not only that you feel yourself equipped to know who is beyond God's forgiveness, but also that you consider me beyond God's forgiveness when it comes across loud and clear to all who know me that I make a conscious effort to adhere to the Golden Rule, to be logically consistent and fair and impartial even when I stand to lose personally, and that I honor God in the process. I do not use or violate others and I even put my neck on the line to prevent others from being themselves used or violated by others. In the view of most theologians, this is the sort of behavior that God expects, even demands of us. Yet you call me a reprobate implying that I have so angered God that he has shut me out of heaven. Absurd. But again, your statement says far more about you than me.

What is really creepy about your labelling me or anyone else a reprobate, Mr. Lamb, is that you yourself surely recognize that you are in no way qualified to tell precisely who God has excluded from heaven and who He has not. No human has this knowledge or power. So what you are really saying when you label someone a reprobate is that you want God to exclude a particular individual from heaven. You are as a little boy tugging at God's "skirts" saying, "Please don't let him into heaven God. I hate him." Now what do you think God will have to say to you in response? I believe that theologians are in unanimous agreement that He will not be impressed. This is really a particularly vile example of hubris and He may just exclude you from heaven on account of it. But I wouldn't know. And the point is neither would you.

Funny how Mr. Patton is so very sure that so and so is a Nazi, a "Joseph Goebbels," a piece of "human garbage", but call Stonewall on his lies and slander, and suddenly he demands to bring God into the fray!

More slander. You allude to "lies" without specifying any. I have not lied here and I think that you know it. You know that you cannot defend yourself so, rather than improve yourself, you resort to lies and slander. No substance, just spittle.

It is the "same old, same old" from you. Do you see how discussion never advances with you? There is nothing to be learned and nothing to be gained. It is just wheels spinning, flinging mud, never leaving one spot in space and time. If you cannot defend yourself, you could simply not respond and save the bandwidth. But instead you keep repeating the same lies and slander ad nauseam in an effort to make the audience forget whatever I originally stated which so threatened you.

Do you allow God any authority in any matter whatsoever?" Mr. Patton asks. Yeah, Mr. Patton, I believe that God is truth, and that those who love God, love the truth. But those that don't love God, or the truth, are very adept at lying and slandering... like you.

See, this is so willfully dishonest and, frankly, blasphemous, that I am forced to ask myself if Marc Lamb is really even a Christian. Is it all an act? If so, why? I have known good Christians and bad Christians but never in my life have I encountered any Christian like you. Surely you cannot possibly be a Christian. But why would a non-Christian lie about being one on this board? I don't get it.

Regardless of whether you truly consider yourself a Christian in some bizarre way or are just playing a role on this board, you need to brush up on your skills. A Christian is supposed to bear witness and illustrate the love and glory of God. You are doing nothing of the kind. Instead of winning adherents, you are scaring people away. Into whose hands do you think they fall when they run away from God, Mr. Lamb? In the eyes of a Christian, you do God a great disservice. Do we really even need to speculate on how God Himself sees someone who drives people away from Him?

If you truly consider yourself a Christian, you have a whole lot of introspection to do in order to improve yourself. And if you are merely playing a role on this board, then you need to put a lot of work into your act. Either way, you have a lot of work to do. Not one among us is perfect and we all have a lot of work to do to improve ourselves. But you have a whole lot more work to do than others and you render this obvious every time you post.

"You shall know them by their fruit," Jesus said. "A bad tree brings forth bad fruit."

Yes, indeed. Be watchful for all Machiavels and do not assist them in their efforts in any way. Furthermore, protect the innocent such that they might not be taken advantage of and used by Machiavels. Men are for the use of God, not of other men. End of story.

Stonewall, you're a "bad tree" that lies, and the love of the truth is not in you.

And you are once again lying and slandering deliberately. I really cannot help but believe that you are not actually a Christian, and moreover that you do not even believe there is a God. But why would anybody bother with such an act? I don't get it. But rest assured, if there is a God, he will deal with you. At least that is what theologians indicate.

I'll tell you what, Marc. I have never been very religious or given to prayer, but I will pray for you. I promise. And I will not bother to consider whether my prayer will meet with your gratitude or your abuse.

On 2002-07-12 21:12, R. Gregory '67 wrote:
The New Republic was leftist, at one time...40 or 50 years ago. The Neoconservative movement is led by former leftists who broke with the left during the last 2T and joined the conservatives, over their support of the Vietnam War. This happened because the left during the 1950s (GI-generation led) had by and large been supportive of the Cold War, but during the 1960s the "New Left" (led by late wave Silents with the rank and file mostly Boomers) came on the scene and turned antiwar and anti-draft. Unlike some other conservatives, whose main issues are moral and social issues (the Christian Right), or economic deregulation (free market think tanks), the Neoconservatives' big issue is a hawkish foreign policy. The New Republic was at the center of this movement.

There is an article on who the Neoconservatives are, at http://www.iraqwar.org/point3.htm

It's written by paleocons and not very sympathetic.

'Neocons' by Australia standards would be the John Howard/Tony Abbott right. Fanatically pro USA, economically neo-liberal, opposed to things like the United Nations and Kyoto.

Fond of traditional moral values, Being strong government when it comes to 'enforcing private property from the envy of the lazy and work-shy' and enforcing what they see as proper moral values.

People who write the Weekly Standard for example would be considered just borderline respectable right in their views here in Australia.

On 2002-07-12 21:09, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-12 10:24, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-12 08:45, firemind wrote:
Marc:

I seem to remember (though I could be wrong) that Newt was one of the Republicans Stonewall liked, along with Reagan.

No, I do not like Newt. In fact I do not believe that I have addressed Newt in any way on this forum so there is nothing for you to "remember" as far as I can tell.

I think you made a post or two about the betrayal of the "Republican Revolution"; even if you didn't explicitly say you hated Newt I could imply it pretty easily...

William, I do not look positively upon Newt Gingrich, this is true. Hate is too strong a word and, in fact, it seems odd but I really do not hate anybody anymore. But that is another discussion (which I find fascinating). :wink: However I am not sure that you drew the proper inferences from the Republican's capitulation in 1995 because my opposition to Gingrich stems from other things primarily. For one, he is a committed globalist and I cannot abide by that any more than the Constitution can. He has actively sold out our sovereignty at every turn and has actually expressed delight in the fact that trade policy has been removed from the people's grip through their elected representatives in Congress where it is required to reside as clearly stipulated in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. We cannot back out of these agreements without provoking an economy-killing trade war and Newt has indicated that he thinks that fact is just awesome, just fantastic! What an absolute scum. That is what I think of Newt Gingrich.


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-13 04:38 ]</font>

On 2002-07-12 17:38, justmom wrote:
Hey, guess what! I just remembered I have a real life.
I like it an aweful lot. I have a wonderful husband, 3 beautiful children. I live 2 miles from the beach. And it's summer!!
And we aren't in the 4T yet, so, I am going to go live whats left of the good life. Because at this point in time, it's really good :smile: And uh, maybe it'll all work out in the end, who knows.
This will be my last post. Bye.

And with that, she's gone, with only the parting words of the Hero of the Democrat party to bid you farewell....- J.F.K.- said,

If you are a real person, Justmom, hang around. I just remembered a classic example which illustrates my point about the Flatulent One on the radio. I'll try to write it up after I have had a few more cups of coffee.

On 2002-07-12 17:24, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

Third Way was a term popular in the media about 3 years ago to refer to a vague "pro-business liberal" position. It was mainly used to refer to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and to the U.K.'s Tony Blair. The New Republic magazine is properly characterized as Neoconservative so I am not quite sure how they fit here. I haven't seen the term Third Way used in that context for a couple of years now.

R., do you mean the Weakly Standard? That is neo-con central, run by Bill Kristol. Or do you mean that the New Republic has gone Third Way?