Al Sharpton is demanding a pass, from the press, on the basis that nobody interrogated Teddy on Chappiquidick, or Hillary on her dubious business dealing or philandering husband.

You lefties like it that way, huh?

Al Sharpton is demanding a pass, from the press, on the basis that nobody interrogated Teddy on Chappiquidick, or Hillary on her dubious business dealing or philandering husband.

You lefties like it that way, huh?

Our peace walk group was diverse, too...............This little town likes to use the word eclectic .

But, not many practicing Stalinists participated.

Our peace walk group was diverse, too...............This little town likes to use the word eclectic .

But, not many practicing Stalinists participated.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Al Sharpton is demanding a pass, from the press, on the basis that nobody interrogated Teddy on Chappiquidick, or Hillary on her dubious business dealing or philandering husband.

You lefties like it that way, huh?

______________________

Sorry Marc. Al Sharpton leaves me cold.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Al Sharpton is demanding a pass, from the press, on the basis that nobody interrogated Teddy on Chappiquidick, or Hillary on her dubious business dealing or philandering husband.

You lefties like it that way, huh?

______________________

Sorry Marc. Al Sharpton leaves me cold.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Our peace walk group was diverse, too...............This little town likes to use the word eclectic .

But, not many practicing Stalinists participated.

You live in Utah, right? Have you ever actually encountered a Stalinist in your home state? :lol: :lol:

Nope. Never.
Although 70 per cent of the population probably consider Democrats to be almost that.

But then, if you take T.R.'s quote to heart, 70 per cent of the Utah population is unpatriotic, servile, and morally treasonable.

Originally Posted by cbailey

There was a peace walk in my community last Saturday. I knew the faces of all the participants. Not a Stalinist or American- hater among them.

Our mayor and the ministers who joined in would not qualify.

Yes, I think the problem Mr. Lamb has is that he assumes that a majority of the protesters are Stalinists or Marxists (he has used the terms interchangably). We had over 6,000 people marching against this war in Albuquerque. The majority of them are not members of Marxist or Stalinist organizations and are not anti-American. Many of them do not qualify as being part of the "left" whatever that may mean. They were people who disagree with administration's foreign policy. The administration is not the United States of America.

A quote from an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal (Op-Ed Page) by Ron Briley:

"We seem to have bought into the idea that exercising our constitutional right to question leaders and policy is in some way disloyal--as the president suggested when he asseerted that Democrats who opposed the Homeland Defense legislation did not care about the nations security...

There is a rich tradition of dissent with American foreign policy and war. Those who ask the tough questions are simply exercising their democratic rights...."



Many of the people who protested oppose the administrations draconian measures in the US Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act. They know that rights that are not excersized will wither on the vine. I believe that they are more patriotic than an Attorney General who violates the right of Habeus Corpus.

Mr. Lamb makes an argument of guilt by association. If I disagree with a government policy and a group that is Marxist or Stalinist (or whatever) also disagrees, then he argues that our mutual disagreement makes me a Marxist or Stalinist (or whatever). This logic is flawed and the argument is not persuasive. It will only persuade a person who is afraid of being called names.

I think one of the issues on the table for this 4T is how do we balance our security with our freedom in the United States. This is not a new issue--it was a founding issue of our nation and has continued to be an issue throughout our history.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

For some on the left, perhaps. Be careful, though, not to assume that all who are against the war agree with that sentiment.

true, true. i consider myself a bit left-of-center (though i'm neutral-to-hawkish on iraq), and i completely disagree with that sentiment.

my mother, a silent, likes to say of many situations "it takes all types". to which, i reply "no, it most certainly does not."


TK

Originally Posted by cbailey

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Al Sharpton is demanding a pass, from the press, on the basis that nobody interrogated Teddy on Chappiquidick, or Hillary on her dubious business dealing or philandering husband.

You lefties like it that way, huh?

______________________

Sorry Marc. Al Sharpton leaves me cold.

That makes three of us "lefties" who've all disavowed Sharpton this morning. :-D

Originally Posted by elilevin

A quote from an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal (Op-Ed Page) by Ron Briley:

"....There is a rich tradition of dissent with American foreign policy and war. Those who ask the tough questions are simply exercising their democratic rights...."

<snip>

Mr. Lamb makes an argument of guilt by association. If I disagree with a government policy and a group that is Marxist or Stalinist (or whatever) also disagrees, then he argues that our mutual disagreement makes me a Marxist or Stalinist (or whatever).

there's a rich tradition of that second part, too.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by elilevin

A quote from an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal (Op-Ed Page) by Ron Briley:

"....There is a rich tradition of dissent with American foreign policy and war. Those who ask the tough questions are simply exercising their democratic rights...."

<snip>

Mr. Lamb makes an argument of guilt by association. If I disagree with a government policy and a group that is Marxist or Stalinist (or whatever) also disagrees, then he argues that our mutual disagreement makes me a Marxist or Stalinist (or whatever).

there's a rich tradition of that second part, too.


TK

Yep! That makes protest and civil disobedience risky to the individual.
I hope that risk does not dissuade our fellow citizens from exercising their rights as free Americans. Osama bin Laden attacked our country, which he calls the great Satan, because he dislikes the liberty we have that makes us what we are.

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Her name was Monica, and this selective outrage today is quite transparent, imho. You folks are nothing more than political hacks, and your supposed prinicipled stand is completely and utterly phoney bs.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

You folks are nothing more than political hacks, and your supposed prinicipled stand is completely and utterly phoney bs.

i KNOW you're not talking to me (insert finger-wagging and head-shaking here).


TK

Originally Posted by SJ

If female circumcision were done by Southern Baptists, you would hear all kinds of screaming from the left-wing about intolerance and superstition. With the relativists you hear hardly anything because the female circumcision is taking place in Africa, which by definition is superior to Western Civilization, or at least not inferior to it, and therefore beyond criticism.

You haven't associated much with the feminist movement, have you? If you had, you'd know that feminists have been railing against "female circumcision" for the past decade and pressing the INS to offer women escaping from countries engaging in that barbaric practice asylum.

By the way, the feminists had also been beating the drum against the Taliban long, long before anyone had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden. Raising money to operate underground schools and medical clinics so that girls could get some kind of education and women basic medical care. This feminist was overjoyed to see the Taliban go last year.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Hmm.. Status quo bombing in Clinton's day vs a war of aggression in Bush's day. Nope, can't see the difference :lol: .

Seriously, Recall what I said on the other thread about learning and adapting opinions to accomodate new infirmation and understanding. I supported H.W. Bush back in his day (when I was 13 or so). I was also against Clinton's actions (in a semi-coherent way) back in his day (when I was a much more mature and rational 17-22 years old). I don't see what bearing that has on my opinions about events today -- except to provide some signposts on the track of my intellectual development.

Why do you keep going back to that? Time changes all things. Hypocricy is most clearly seen in conflicting attitudes held simultaneously -- not separated by decades. Those which change over time are likely the simple result of growth and maturation. Again, I fail to see what you don't get about this.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by SJ

If female circumcision were done by Southern Baptists, you would hear all kinds of screaming from the left-wing about intolerance and superstition. With the relativists you hear hardly anything because the female circumcision is taking place in Africa, which by definition is superior to Western Civilization, or at least not inferior to it, and therefore beyond criticism.

You haven't associated much with the feminist movement, have you? If you had, you'd know that feminists have been railing against "female circumcision" for the past decade and pressing the INS to offer women escaping from countries engaging in that barbaric practice asylum.

By the way, the feminists had also been beating the drum against the Taliban long, long before anyone had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden. Raising money to operate underground schools and medical clinics so that girls could get some kind of education and women basic medical care. This feminist was overjoyed to see the Taliban go last year.

Feminists are more often found on the left-wing, but are not equivalent to it. I do not hear a majority of left-wingers raising this up as a major issue, nor do you hear them constantly screaming in protest against the existence of slavery - black-against-black slavery in this case.

Example: For more than a decade NPR beat a drum about apartheid and Mandela and so on. Every week there were at least 2-3 reports about the abuses in South Africa. Fine. I hear nothing however about these other problems at all. Where are Jesse and Al on this issue? Why are they not constantly campaigning against this abuse? Where is Ralph Nader?

Maybe because it is black-on-black violence?

How about maybe because people are usually concerned with issues in their own countries and their own experience first and foremost and not of other countries or cultures until it gets quite bad or it affects them personally?

Everything in the Universe is relative and to argue otherwise is pure folly. Your world of "absolutes" is entirely of your own construction.

Sometimes attitudes that change over time are simply the result of guilt, bitterness, frustration and unfettered insecurity that result in controlling, reactionary responses. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Her name was Monica, and this selective outrage today is quite transparent, imho. You folks are nothing more than political hacks, and your supposed prinicipled stand is completely and utterly phoney bs.

------------------------------


Your post reminded me of a conversation that I had with my GI mother the other day. She's a school teacher, and always has been very interested in politics and current events. A few days ago she was scolding herself for not remembering much about what was going on in Iraq in the late 90's, and how she hadn't kept herself educated on Saddam and Iraq much after the Gulf War.

We both agreed that our recollection of Clinton's "dropping bombs on Saddam" was really hazy.

And why had we not paid the attention (that we should have) to this event?

Our answer, which interestingly enough was identical to the answer to Marc's question:

(HER NAME WAS) MONICA.

If Clinton was trying to divert attention from his "monica problems", it didn't work for us. :oops:

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by cbailey

Do you want to stop public discussion? Aren't the protests a time- honored form of discussion in this country?

I think what's really going on here is that "time-honored" tradition of guilt by association

We've all just been suckered by the Stalinists and America-haters, CBailey. Get with the program already!!!

You might apply a rather mauve association here as well:

Mr. Andrew Sullivan is for the war in Iraq.

Mr. Andrew Sullivan is gay.

The War on Saddam is gay!




But, wait Mr. Justin Raimondo is against the war in Iraq.

Mr. Justin Raimondo is gay.

Being against the War on Saddam is gay!



Perhaps even discussion of Iraq in "purple prose" is an indicator of sexual preference....IRAQ is SO GAY!....not that there is anything wrong with that.


I hope this has furthered our understanding. :wink:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by cbailey

Do you want to stop public discussion? Aren't the protests a time- honored form of discussion in this country?

I think what's really going on here is that "time-honored" tradition of guilt by association

We've all just been suckered by the Stalinists and America-haters, CBailey. Get with the program already!!!

You might apply a rather mauve association here as well:

Mr. Andrew Sullivan is for the war in Iraq.

Mr. Andrew Sullivan is gay.

The War on Saddam is gay!




But, wait Mr. Justin Raimondo is against the war in Iraq.

Mr. Justin Raimondo is gay.

Being against the War on Saddam is gay!



Perhaps even discussion of Iraq in "purple prose" is an indicator of sexual preference....IRAQ is SO GAY!....not that there is anything wrong with that.


I hope this has furthered our understanding. :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Hmm.. Status quo bombing in Clinton's day vs a war of aggression in Bush's day. Nope, can't see the difference :lol: .

Seriously, Recall what I said on the other thread about learning and adapting opinions to accomodate new infirmation and understanding. I supported H.W. Bush back in his day (when I was 13 or so). I was also against Clinton's actions (in a semi-coherent way) back in his day (when I was a much more mature and rational 17-22 years old). I don't see what bearing that has on my opinions about events today -- except to provide some signposts on the track of my intellectual development.

Why do you keep going back to that? Time changes all things. Hypocricy is most clearly seen in conflicting attitudes held simultaneously -- not separated by decades. Those which change over time are likely the simple result of growth and maturation. Again, I fail to see what you don't get about this.

Thanks, Justin, for articulating this so well. That's exactly what I've been going through in the past couple of years.

There's no question that my opinion of Clinton is much lower than it used to be. But, correspondingly, my opinion of Bush Jr. has sunk further as well.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Perhaps even discussion of Iraq in "purple prose" is an indicator of sexual preference....IRAQ is SO GAY!....not that there is anything wrong with that.


I hope this has furthered our understanding. :wink:

:lol: :lol:


Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Queer Nation", doesn't it? ;-)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Hmm.. Status quo bombing in Clinton's day vs a war of aggression in Bush's day. Nope, can't see the difference :lol: .

Seriously, Recall what I said on the other thread about learning and adapting opinions to accomodate new infirmation and understanding. I supported H.W. Bush back in his day (when I was 13 or so). I was also against Clinton's actions (in a semi-coherent way) back in his day (when I was a much more mature and rational 17-22 years old). I don't see what bearing that has on my opinions about events today -- except to provide some signposts on the track of my intellectual development.

Why do you keep going back to that? Time changes all things. Hypocricy is most clearly seen in conflicting attitudes held simultaneously -- not separated by decades. Those which change over time are likely the simple result of growth and maturation. Again, I fail to see what you don't get about this.

I would encourage you to go back to the iraq war thread and carefully reread what I posted. What I said about Clinton, and 1998, wasn't aimed at you at all.