Mature intelligent right wing freaks — Brooklynian

Mature intelligent right wing freaks

Now that AG is gone, we should all try to recruit some articulate right-wingers from the nabe (if they exist) to start posting here so the political discussions aren't so masturbatory.

Comments

  • Subject: Re: Mature intelligent right wing freaks

    Carnivore wrote: Now that AG is gone, we should all try to recruit some articulate right-wingers from the nabe (if they exist) to start posting here so the political discussions aren't so masturbatory.
    What - I don't count?
  • Subject: Re: Mature intelligent right wing freaks

    dailyheights wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Now that AG is gone, we should all try to recruit some articulate right-wingers from the nabe (if they exist) to start posting here so the political discussions aren't so masturbatory.
    What - I don't count?
    LOL :lol:

    I don't know, it seems like some of the discussions go something like this:

    "Yes, Bush sure does suck."

    "I agree."

    "Cops suck too."

    "Yes."
  • I used to be smart but booze killed my brain. sorry.
  • Come on, Alex. You know you want to be the ambassador. I've seen you come out in defense of Anonymous Guest (in his more lucid periods, at least).

    Just guessing at Jack's politics - he seems to be along the lines of what Carnivore is looking for, but I picture him to be more of a thinking-libertarian type, rather than thinking-conservative.

    I'd like to think that people in Brooklyn are more nuanced in their political views. I'm highly suspicious of anyone who says "I'm a conservative" (or "I'm a liberal" for that matter).
  • See? THIS is why my friend Jamie (from the Charleston thread) needs to move to PH. Okay, he's not right wing exactly, but he likes to challenge liberal views, and he's terribly smart and (as you may have noticed), friendly and articulate.
  • I think you should put an ad in The New York Press --- or The Brooklyn Standard ... :twisted:
  • I am probably more "right wing" then alot of people on this board but I'm not up for any debates. I took a course on politics last year at Brooklyn College and have since decided that I am not voting any more, and that I am never going to school again. The only exception will be for Marty Markowitz.
  • No offense, but my sense about this board is that dissenting opinions are mostly met with either silence or a certain amount of bashing.

    Here goes: I personally do not think that FCR and the Ratner plan are as bad as people are making them out to be. If I were to argue that point I'd be squashed. So I don't.
  • I will try to get my buddy in here, I think he can give you what you're looking for.
  • uh oh... (ducks)
  • dailyheights wrote: I'd like to think that people in Brooklyn are more nuanced in their political views. I'm highly suspicious of anyone who says "I'm a conservative" (or "I'm a liberal" for that matter).
    True enough, but I think it's fair to say that the political leanings of the majority of the Borough are actually to the left of the Democratic Party (with the exception of parts of South Brooklyn).

    I'm a tree-hugging, ACLU-card-carrying, left-wing commie bastard. But I think it's more interesting to have some bible-thumping, red-necked, evolution-denying, cousin-marrying, gun-toting, pickup-truck-driving, NASCAR-watching, gay-hating fascist bastards posting too, as well as some people in between.
  • Wow, I was right.

    Bye Daily Heights. It's been fun.

    FLUTE
  • The majority of posters seem to be lefty so people with more conservative views are bound to feel bashed. I'd like to see other opinions as well, I always enjoyed Jack's posts even though I disagreed with him most of the time.
  • You were right about what? Did I miss something again?
  • Come on, we're the only ones "bashing" or disagreeing with right wing republicans? This is a hardcore BLUE state. If someone is right wing, "conservative" {whatever that really means}, they have to keep thier mouth shut everywhere in New York, not just here, for fear of being attacked verbally. This is one of the only places in Brooklyn, I'm guessing, that someone with those political leanings can express themselves. The problem we've been having is not a simple difference of opinion, but the way "they've" been expressing themselves, which has been anonymously, vitriolically, race-baitingly, nonsensically, illogically and very rudely.

    I'd love to see some posts that express "conservative" opinions creatively and logically, without personal insults. Let's go! Back up your opinions with logic, and you'll get the same in return.
  • FLUTE wrote: Wow, I was right.

    Bye Daily Heights. It's been fun.

    FLUTE
    Surely you could wait more than 17 minutes before assuming your statement was being met with silence. And no one attacked you.
  • Subject: You know...

    I'll try to say this as diplomatically as possible. I don't think the majority of the left-wing opinion on this message board has been that articulate or well-reasoned. Unfortunately that doesn't really invite articulate and well-reasoned debate from whatever right-wing posters you're seeking.

    A lot of the political speech here could best be categorized as "bumper-sticker" level angry comments against monolithic police states and corrupt racist police officers that would incite most people who don't see the world in such extremes. The thread regarding the NYPD's announcement of random searches of bags could be interesting, but instead it's filled with rants. Granted, there are issues to be explored on both topics, but most people's comments have been a wee bit over-the-top, and hard to really take seriously.

    So, some people with differing opinions won't respond because they don't believe the response they will get will be well-reasoned.

    I'll be your well-reasoned right-wing debate partner if you'd like, but I'd be playing a part. I'm a liberal Democrat.
  • Subject: Re: You know...

    Eric wrote: I'll try to say this as diplomatically as possible. I don't think the majority of the left-wing opinion on this message board has been that articulate or well-reasoned. Unfortunately that doesn't really invite articulate and well-reasoned debate from whatever right-wing posters you're seeking.

    A lot of the political speech here could best be categorized as "bumper-sticker" level angry comments against monolithic police states and corrupt racist police officers that would incite most people who don't see the world in such extremes. The thread regarding the NYPD's announcement of random searches of bags could be interesting, but instead it's filled with rants. Granted, there are issues to be explored on both topics, but most people's comments have been a wee bit over-the-top, and hard to really take seriously.

    So, some people with differing opinions won't respond because they don't believe the response they will get will be well-reasoned.

    I'll be your well-reasoned right-wing debate partner if you'd like, but I'd be playing a part. I'm a liberal Democrat.
    All good points. I think having a well-articulated argument from the other side (not to reduce everything to a dichotomy, but...) will bring out better-reasoned statements from everyone. You don't have to "play a part" to further the discussion. There have to be people out there who actually disagree with the majority here. I just want them to speak up.

    Here, I'll start you off...

    "Most of the people complaining about the police searches would be the first to complain about the Bush administration's ineffective response to terror if/when a terrorist attack on the NYC subway system ever takes place. You can't have it both ways. Some freedoms have to be sacrificed to make us all a little safer. The NYPD is doing their best to minimize any infringement on people's rights. In fact, the proposed searches are entirely voluntary, so there is no issue of illegal search and seizure. The NYC subway clearly has to be one of the top American targets for terrorist attack, so we should be applauding the fact that our local officials are finally starting to realize this and act accordingly, not attacking the first steps they're taking to make our system safer."

    Now is that so hard? C'mon guys, I know you're out there!
  • Subject: Re: You know...

    Carnivore wrote:
    All good points. I think having a well-articulated argument from the other side (not to reduce everything to a dichotomy, but...) will bring out better-reasoned statements from everyone. You don't have to "play a part" to further the discussion. There have to be people out there who actually disagree with the majority here. I just want them to speak up.

    Here, I'll start you off...

    "Most of the people complaining about the police searches would be the first to complain about the Bush administration's ineffective response to terror if/when a terrorist attack on the NYC subway system ever takes place. You can't have it both ways. Some freedoms have to be sacrificed to make us all a little safer. The NYPD is doing their best to minimize any infringement on people's rights. In fact, the proposed searches are entirely voluntary, so there is no issue of illegal search and seizure. The NYC subway clearly has to be one of the top American targets for terrorist attack, so we should be applauding the fact that our local officials are finally starting to realize this and act accordingly, not attacking the first steps they're taking to make our system safer."

    Now is that so hard? C'mon guys, I know you're out there!
    I somewhat disagree with the majority here. Not so much necessarily in substance but reasoning. (Should this comment even be here? Or in the NYPD subway section)

    I think all government agencies are going to be subject to intense and at times unfair Monday morning government. Even libertarians would agree that at a minimum it is the government's job to provide national or regional security. The expectations are that the government can and will keep its citizens safe, period. Unfortunately it may not be legal, practical or possible to keep everybody safe all the time.

    Which is why I think that the Bush administration so often walks the difficult and somewhat paradoxical line of reaffirming that they expect another major terrorist attack to occur while at the same time reminding people that we have been safe since 9/11. Sure you could argue that at its most basic point it's CYA but it's somewhat the only tact that you can take. The subway could be extremely secure, but people don't want to give up their time and civil liberties to make it secure. However, at the same time they want to be safe. It's hard to balance those.

    I've seen a lot of complaints from people who were upset that the feds recently remarked how they would focus more time and energy on confirming the security of airlines instead of local public transporation like the NYC subway, on the rationale that an airline disaster would likely create more deaths and injuries.

    When new initiatives are taken however, whether it be more aggressive police action or more closed-circuit cameras there's a vocal outrage from some in the community.

    I don't see in many circumstances how more security can't come without a change in civil liberties. I don't think the founders of the Constitution ever envisioned dirty bombs, over-the-shoulder missiles, suicide bombings or anthrax. So how the Constitution will be interpreted in the future to things like this and the national security needs of the government will be interesting.

    I for one, don't mind seeing more closed-circuit cameras. Never really have. I'm out in public, anybody can see what I'm doing...if it's recorded, it's recorded. If I'm at home, I have privacy.

    I do think there is some worth to doing random searches with consent. I don't know if I see much difference between this and travelling by air. Obviously there are loads of practical issues to be addressed as well as the worthwhileness of the practice. Legally, (and I am an attorney) if it's done right...and it might not be, I think it will pass muster.
  • sje wrote: I'd love to see some posts that express "conservative" opinions cretively and logically
    hahahaha! and id like to see pigs fly :lol:
  • Anonymous wrote: [quote=sje]I'd love to see some posts that express "conservative" opinions cretively and logically
    hahahaha! and id like to see pigs fly :lol:

    that was me. OMG I FELL VICTIM TO THE ACCIDENTAL GUEST POSTING! :shock: :shock: :shock:
  • You should try logging in "cretively and logically."

    :D :) :o :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:
  • Anonymous wrote: [quote=sje]I'd love to see some posts that express "conservative" opinions cretively and logically
    hahahaha! and id like to see pigs fly :lol:
    Read Eric's post above. That's the kind of argument I'm talking about. We need more of that.
  • dailyheights wrote: You should try logging in "cretively and logically."

    :D :) :o :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:
    i tried, but im sorry to say that whatever authentication your host is using doesnt accept encrypted interpretive dance keys for logging in :cry:
  • extra security measures are a nice idea...but sort of useless.
    what needs to change is the totalitarian, ethnocentric american attitude towards non-westernized countries. with "our" president making statements like
    "those barbaric people, whose backward theology" referring to the insurgents...who are only trying to defend their home from occupation, it's no wonder that terriorst attacks have tripled in the past year, worldwide.

    it's policy that's at fault. it's the general american ideology...we're better than the rest...that's at fault. and i say this b/c i love this country and all that it has given me, and my immigrant family...but come on...the attitude...the machismo...the freedom fries...gross!! and invasive...

    we are in fact beginning to send TV signals to venezuela, against their government's wishes...they are in the process of jamming their signals. why? think about it. 4th largest oil producer...it's on the list. talks failed between the US and Venezuela three months ago...Venezuela is now shipping it's oil to china, instead of us...and they bought millions of dollars of military equipment from Russia.

    many americans are so ignorant of the fact that for decades, worldwide measures have been taken to deal with terrorism: ireland, england, isreal, sudan, venzuela, columbia, china, russia...etc. it's not new to the majority of the population...i guess everyone's afraid that their supersized country is not all that super, and is not untouchable.
    respect breeds respect...we're going the wrong way.
  • Carnivore wrote: [quote=FLUTE]Wow, I was right.

    Bye Daily Heights. It's been fun.

    FLUTE
    Surely you could wait more than 17 minutes before assuming your statement was being met with silence. And no one attacked you.

    Hm. I thought she was kidding...

    I have no problem with things being met with silence, so I put that in a totally different category than bashing. Sometimes I just prefer to agree to disagree with people.
  • EmilyM wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=FLUTE]Wow, I was right.

    Bye Daily Heights. It's been fun.

    FLUTE
    Surely you could wait more than 17 minutes before assuming your statement was being met with silence. And no one attacked you.

    Hm. I thought she was kidding...

    I have no problem with things being met with silence, so I put that in a totally different category than bashing. Sometimes I just prefer to agree to disagree with people.

    so if bashing is bad and silence is no good, does that mean only agreeing/nice conversation is allowed?

    if you cant say anything nice, dont say anything at all ;)

    though somtimes i think the silence here is because stuff is fast paced, and either people missed your point or simply arent interested in discussing it.
  • Yeah, I agree with rhodamine. Plus there's that whole "having a job" downer. Sometimes things come up that I actually have to deal with promptly, so I miss posts that I intended to reply to, and it feels kind of pointless later on.
  • EmilyM wrote: Yeah, I agree with rhodamine. Plus there's that whole "having a job" downer. Sometimes things come up that I actually have to deal with promptly, so I miss posts that I intended to reply to, and it feels kind of pointless later on.
    Yeah. I missed a bunch of stuff this morning because Herrick and I had to go on an emergency bialy run.
  • Anonymous wrote: with "our" president making statements like
    "those barbaric people, whose backward theology" referring to the insurgents...who are only trying to defend their home from occupation, it's no wonder that terriorst attacks have tripled in the past year, worldwide.
    You lose most of your credibility when you cast the insurgents in Iraq as patriots defending their home from occupation if not for your overuse of scare quotes. The insurgents are really a diverse mix of 1) recent non-Iraqi foreign terrorists whose focus is mainly on the disruption of the United States mission there rather than the future of Iraq and 2) former powerful members of the minority-ruling Sunni who don't like the fact that they will be just another Iraqi come (if it does constructively happen) the new Iraqi democracy. The majority Shiites were for the most part oppressed under the old regime and there is at best in the future a reduction in power for the Sunni and at worst, payback for the previous oppression.

    The insurgents certainly can't be looked upon as noble (unless you think purposefully targeting Iraqi civilians is breaking eggs to make an omelette) and certainly can't be looked upon as proper representations of Islam either. So I don't think that calling them barbaric or backward is too much of a stretch.

    The insurgents certainly aren't anybody with whom you'd want to have a cup of coffee.
  • Yeah. I missed a bunch of stuff this morning because Herrick and I had to go on an emergency bialy run.

    Share the wealth man! (I hope you got some cream cheese and lox for those)
  • Eric wrote: The insurgents certainly aren't anybody with whom you'd want to have a cup of coffee.
    Don't they have an "Iraqi insurgents meet-up night" at Muddy Waters now?
  • Eric wrote: [quote=Anonymous]with "our" president making statements like
    "those barbaric people, whose backward theology" referring to the insurgents...who are only trying to defend their home from occupation, it's no wonder that terriorst attacks have tripled in the past year, worldwide.
    You lose most of your credibility when you cast the insurgents in Iraq as patriots defending their home from occupation if not for your overuse of scare quotes. The insurgents are really a diverse mix of 1) recent non-Iraqi foreign terrorists whose focus is mainly on the disruption of the United States mission there rather than the future of Iraq and 2) former powerful members of the minority-ruling Sunni who don't like the fact that they will be just another Iraqi come (if it does constructively happen) the new Iraqi democracy. The majority Shiites were for the most part oppressed under the old regime and there is at best in the future a reduction in power for the Sunni and at worst, payback for the previous oppression.

    The insurgents certainly can't be looked upon as noble (unless you think purposefully targeting Iraqi civilians is breaking eggs to make an omelette) and certainly can't be looked upon as proper representations of Islam either. So I don't think that calling them barbaric or backward is too much of a stretch.

    The insurgents certainly aren't anybody with whom you'd want to have a cup of coffee.
    Let's face it: we've created a situation where there is a civil war going on there. Yes the Shiites were oppressed by the Sunni minority onder the Baath government. Yes there are foreign groups who have joined the fight to expell our forces. But to characterize the opposition as "terrorists" is to ignore the fact that they have some real concerns. No one is saying they want to have coffee with them. But I'd be willing to bet that the U.S. invasion and occupation led to more loss of Iraqi civilian life than the subsequent opposition. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4760756
  • Carnivore, women have no place in political discourse. I would thank you kindly to step away from this.
  • Isa wrote: Carnivore, women have no place in political discourse. I would thank you kindly to step away from this.
    LOL :lol:

    I will not let my people down. I DEMAND to be heard! :P :x :idea:
  • Carnivore wrote: [quote=Eric][quote=Anonymous]with "our" president making statements like
    "those barbaric people, whose backward theology" referring to the insurgents...who are only trying to defend their home from occupation, it's no wonder that terriorst attacks have tripled in the past year, worldwide.
    You lose most of your credibility when you cast the insurgents in Iraq as patriots defending their home from occupation if not for your overuse of scare quotes. The insurgents are really a diverse mix of 1) recent non-Iraqi foreign terrorists whose focus is mainly on the disruption of the United States mission there rather than the future of Iraq and 2) former powerful members of the minority-ruling Sunni who don't like the fact that they will be just another Iraqi come (if it does constructively happen) the new Iraqi democracy. The majority Shiites were for the most part oppressed under the old regime and there is at best in the future a reduction in power for the Sunni and at worst, payback for the previous oppression.

    The insurgents certainly can't be looked upon as noble (unless you think purposefully targeting Iraqi civilians is breaking eggs to make an omelette) and certainly can't be looked upon as proper representations of Islam either. So I don't think that calling them barbaric or backward is too much of a stretch.

    The insurgents certainly aren't anybody with whom you'd want to have a cup of coffee.
    Let's face it: we've created a situation where there is a civil war going on there. Yes the Shiites were oppressed by the Sunni minority onder the Baath government. Yes there are foreign groups who have joined the fight to expell our forces. But to characterize the opposition as "terrorists" is to ignore the fact that they have some real concerns. No one is saying they want to have coffee with them. But I'd be willing to bet that the U.S. invasion and occupation led to more loss of Iraqi civilian life than the subsequent opposition. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4760756

    Well, I don't think I ever said that the entire opposition were terrorists. I noted the heavy influence of non-Iraqi foreign terrorists there. From what I recall reading (I think in the NY Times) is that even those who were once somewhat sympathetic to the "opposition" are getting tired of their tactics.

    As for the scare quotes on "terrorist" I don't buy too much into identity politics and what we're going to call things. I like adjectives and words that have precise meanings instead of ones that people use because they fear they are judging. I'm not out to be a nihilist.

    I think that combatants that don't identify with a state and whose objective it is to kill civilians in order to disrupt, not necessarily to "win", are satisfactorily called terrorists.

    Therefore, I feel pretty safe noting that there are terrorists in Iraq. No scare quotes necessary.

    I don't think it's fair to say that the US invasion has caused more deaths than under Saddam Hussein. I think that's more of a reflection of Hussein than the U.S. invasion, though. I can't subscribe to the idea that Hussein was relatively harmless compared to the U.S. He's a bad bad bad man. Unfortunately his dictatorship kept a country that had always teetered towards civil war together under the grips of fear and strong tribal rule.

    Shit would have hit the fan no matter who unwrapped the Pandora's Box that is Iraq with out a Hussein in power. The U.S. might have made it worse because of their bad reputation...or maybe not because they have great military resources. But no matter what, a civil war would have erupted at some point in Iraq. Too much tension, too little solutions.
  • Anonymous wrote: I don't think it's fair to say that the US invasion has caused more deaths than under Saddam Hussein. I think that's more of a reflection of Hussein than the U.S. invasion, though. I can't subscribe to the idea that Hussein was relatively harmless compared to the U.S. He's a bad bad bad man. Unfortunately his dictatorship kept a country that had always teetered towards civil war together under the grips of fear and strong tribal rule.
    I never compared deaths due to the U.S. with deaths under Hussein. I compared them with deaths due to the subsequent insurgency (read my post above). I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the simplistic idea that Hussein was a "bad man", although the then Republican administration didn't seem to have any problem with him when he was at war with Iran.
    image
  • Carnivore wrote: [quote=Anonymous]I don't think it's fair to say that the US invasion has caused more deaths than under Saddam Hussein. I think that's more of a reflection of Hussein than the U.S. invasion, though. I can't subscribe to the idea that Hussein was relatively harmless compared to the U.S. He's a bad bad bad man. Unfortunately his dictatorship kept a country that had always teetered towards civil war together under the grips of fear and strong tribal rule.
    I never compared deaths due to the U.S. with deaths under Hussein. I compared them with deaths due to the subsequent insurgency (read my post above). I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the simplistic idea that Hussein was a "bad man", although the then Republican administration didn't seem to have any problem with him when he was at war with Iran.


    Sorry about the reading comprehension problem. I think I got confused by the fact that the US is still occupying.

    I still disagree though...and let's be honest, there's only a greater chance of me being right as time goes on.

    I've heard people on the left pooh-pooh Hussein. Usually in comparisons like the one I thought you were making instead of the one you actually were.

    Here's what's a sticky point for some people. Noting that the US once turned a blind eye towards Hussein and now suddenly care about the Iraqi people when it serves the U.S. does indeed point out hypocrisy. However, is hypocrisy alone an argument against acting?

    I'm not so many people have created a solid foreign policy on when they feel it's appropriate to violate the sovereignty of another land and remove their leader. If you say never, you have to be somewhat comfortable with the idea that others in the world are suffering and although we might be able to alleviate it or stop it, we won't.

    Incidentally, to stave off some arguments...I was/am against the war because I didn't think it would serve our foreign policy interests. I didn't think it would make us more secure and that it would enflame anger against us and cause us more problems. So far, unfortunately I think I'm right. I was hoping that I would have been wrong.
  • Eric wrote: I'm not so many people have created a solid foreign policy on when they feel it's appropriate to violate the sovereignty of another land and remove their leader. If you say never, you have to be somewhat comfortable with the idea that others in the world are suffering and although we might be able to alleviate it or stop it, we won't.
    Fair enough, but I think that most people would agree that any "war of choice" (sorry for the soundbite, but it's the most concise description) demands real public debate based on accurate information before putting our troops at risk. That is not what happened in the current administration's push for the Iraq war.
  • Isn't this fun? :lol:

    And I meant "creAtively", not "cretinly". I'm certainly learning alot about this by the postings here now.

    BTW, what happened to our avatars? Do we need to re-upload?
  • Eric wrote:

    You lose most of your credibility when you cast the insurgents in Iraq as patriots defending their home from occupation if not for your overuse of scare quotes. The insurgents are really a diverse mix of 1) recent non-Iraqi foreign terrorists whose focus is mainly on the disruption of the United States mission there rather than the future of Iraq and 2) former powerful members of the minority-ruling Sunni who don't like the fact that they will be just another Iraqi come (if it does constructively happen) the new Iraqi democracy. The majority Shiites were for the most part oppressed under the old regime and there is at best in the future a reduction in power for the Sunni and at worst, payback for the previous oppression.

    The insurgents certainly can't be looked upon as noble (unless you think purposefully targeting Iraqi civilians is breaking eggs to make an omelette) and certainly can't be looked upon as proper representations of Islam either. So I don't think that calling them barbaric or backward is too much of a stretch.

    The insurgents certainly aren't anybody with whom you'd want to have a cup of coffee.
    they're not scare quotes, i was simply borrowing from the government's new language, and to express hypocrisy.
    the insurgents are terrorist by definition (and i know they are not Iraq citizens, precisely my point...but they are in a sense defending their home, the middle east does not have the same idea of nationalism as we or other westernized countries do...they are bound together by their spiritual belief, and are willing to defend it by any means necessary, (however f*$ked up it is.) they are ruthless, and destructive, and pissed off, and oh yea we blew up a couple thousand homes, hospitals, schools, libraries, museums trying to get one guy...they are no more terrorists than we are or the native americans were when we occupied this country, or the south africans were when the dutch and british occupied their country. (someone is going to think i think native americans and indigenous SA's are terrorists, it's an analogy to prove the new linguistics ridiculousness of the word "terrorists".) occupation breeds aggression. intra-fighting is part of the unfortutnate process. much of the destruction of these two indigenous populations was due to their own unfortunate disagreements between tribes, clans and bands...fighting for the few resources left...it's been the historical British occupation philosophy for several centuries. come in mess stuff up and let the people fight among themselves until they break their backs and their hearts. then plant your flag and reap the rewards...why are we building 20 permanent bases in Iraq if we are going to pack up once democracy is in motion? we (includinging saudia arabia and britain) need to have access and control of that oil...bottom line.

    plus the point of my post was about the general ignorant attitude of the majority of Americans towards the politics outside of the US.

    the war (which is not even legally the proper term) is illegal. not one justification has been true, and in the past 2 years has shifted dramatically. i don't even know what our government is saying the justification is today. yes, saddam needed to be removed, he was a f*ck. but bombing an entire country was not the way to do it. in a sense, we are terrorizing an entire region of civilians. no?

    the reason it was time to remove saddam and not 10, 15, 20 years ago, was because he was in the process of changing his oil trades into Euros, a move that could have virtually rendered the dollar useless, as well as made the price of oil for americans, let's see what's the exchange rate of the euro-dollar...??

    p.s. the president of the usa should not call people names, just bad policy and something we all learned not to do in kindergarten... but we should be used to him dumbing everything down...

    sorry for the rant...i'm just pissed.
  • This thread has been dormant for awhile, but I've got to extricate myself from the Ratner thread and tackle a new topic.

    Moving back to the original line of discussion (I'm not about to stick my hand in into fire that is the Iraq issue), I wanted to make a point about the liberal vs. conservative issue. I think those words are badly misused. Many of those on this board who like to identify with the concept of liberalism are actually quite conservative. Think about the word: if you want to conserve or preserve something (character of the neighborhood, for example), if you are skeptical of change and hesitant to take risks, if you lean towards isolationism, or are opposed to free trade, you are a conservative. Many here, while presenting themselves as liberal, have in fact been espousing very conservative views. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's important to get the terminology right.

    There is a big difference between socialism and liberalism, even though we often inaccurately equate the two. Socialism emphasizes equality, stability, constistency, the rights of the group over the individual, and self-sufficiency. Liberalism emphasizes openness, freedom, tolerance, change and progress, and gives priority to the individual over the group.

    It strikes me that most of the lefty posters on this board are socialists, not liberals. We're just afraid to use that word in the U.S. b/c it's stigmatized.
  • escap wrote: It strikes me that most of the lefty posters on this board are socialists, not liberals. We're just afraid to use that word in the U.S. b/c it's stigmatized.
    well said. i couldnt agree more with the socialist stigma...

    SOCIALISTS OF DH UNITE! :idea: :idea: :idea: 8)
  • I definitely agree with escap. We have a strong need for new terminology/a better understanding of current political divisions in this country.

    It drives me crazy that the majority of people who claim to be "conservative" are the first ones to go for laws that restrict personal freedoms FAR more than the laws "liberals" want. I can't understand how a person can at once rail against the government for being too controlling because it is (for example) trying to keep AK-47s out of the hands of mental patients, but lobby wholeheartedly for laws that restrict what an individual can do with his or her own body in his or her own private life!

    I know this is a blanket statement, but I hope you know what I mean.
  • Subject: semantics

    Bluedove, I understand what you are trying to say, and I think it shows a good example of the hypocrisy that ensues when people have their terms muddled.

    But just to reiterate, I'm saying that restricting personal freedoms IS a conservative concept, by definition. A true liberal would always take the side of increased personal freedoms. Thus, in the examples you cited, restricting our personal freedoms in the bedroom is most definitely a conservative idea. However, the gun issue is a lot trickier, b/c the word conservative implies risk aversion and an emphasis on security, so obviously being pro gun freedom is by definition not a conservative value. However, being in favor of personal freedoms doesn't include the freedom to do harm to others. Therefore, I would characterize the NRA types as anarchist more than liberal.

    For the record, I dislike the term libertarian. It's a contrived term that just means liberal, because in America we're too afraid to say "socialists" and instead call socialists liberals, even though they're really not.
  • Subject: Re: semantics

    escap wrote: For the record, I dislike the term libertarian. It's a contrived term that just means liberal, because in America we're too afraid to say "socialists" and instead call socialists liberals, even though they're really not.
    What are we so afraid of about saying "Socialist"? Because it carries a vague McCarthy-ish stigma? Whats so bad about that? Cause it makes people start humming Imagine? ;)

    I'm a Socialist. I am what most people would call "liberal", but I hate the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" so much... as well as their automatic implications of "Republican" and "Democrat", especially since I don't ascribe to the majority of what either the Conservatives or Liberals would call their core platform.

    This past election, I voted for Kerry under the Socialist party-line. That way, Kerry got my vote, and the Socialist party got another tally in their column (which effects them staying on the ballot in future elections, btw, this is why its important... its a longer-term goal than mostAmericans can deal with staying true to). When/if the Socialist party ever puts together a candidate that has any chance of making waves, I'll vote straight Socialist, and hopefully leave the proto-american-conservative-liberal-republican-democrat clusterfuck behind!

    My parents are both southerners, and would most likely be called "Conservatives" nowadays... but they are Socialist to the core, despite how anyone could ever label their spiritual/political/social views. Its just all semantics...

    ...and semantics are a bitch! Be proud to be Socialists, if you swing that way... and be proud that you can exist under a different- yet still very much respected and all-American- label! 8)
  • Right. I understand that restricting personal freedoms is traditionally conservative, but to me that philosophy makes no sense when coupled with other "conservative" values such as being against government control of other areas of life (like guns, land ownership, etc.)

    I think we need some more nuanced politics (and political discourse!) in this country...the straight up two-party system is a big part of the problem these days. Most people don't fall squarely into EITHER category, but when the choices are so limited, you just have to pick which issues are MOST important to you and go with the party that at least represents your feelings on those. But that, as we saw last year, can lead to some very lose-lose situations. Particularly when we are in such a critical moment in history.

    I read some absolutely fantastic articles about this right before the 2004 election (mainly written by conservatives who had major problems with Bush's Iraq and/or economic agenda, but at the same time definitely did not identify as Democrats) I wonder if I can remember where to find any...
  • I would like to bring up two things that i haven't read in this thread. First off all regarding Iraq its stricking that none has brought up the fact that we supported Saddam. Rumsfield has been photogrpahed shaking his hand. In fact we allowed the killing and gasing that Saddam perpetrated until he attacked one of our (the united states) interests: Kuwait. Osama Bin laden was trained by the CIA. These people were trained, aided and supplied with weapons by our country until it did not suit our needs.
    In fact Bin Laden demanded three things after the attack: withdrawal of troops from saudi arabia, ending of the occupation in palestine, and an end to the sanctions in iraq which were hurting its people and children. This was not "hating our freedom."
    As a country it seems impossible that we can ever be "safe" if we ignore the reasons these actions are not being committed. does this justify them-of course not, but if you're ill you treat the cause and not the symtpoms. The fact of the matter is that we in this country could have used $300 billion for food, education, health care. Ever person in the world could have fresh water to drink for 1/300th of that amount of money. Bag checks are but a small added part of our lives, trying to maintain the idea of, but not the reality of security and resolution.
  • i think everyone here is pretty familiar with the PR photo of 'rummy vader' and 'sadman' shaking hands...and i think we all know why we didn't take him out years ago. cuz' he was our oil buddy. but like i pointed out earlier...he was threatening to go Euro so he had to go.

    correct me if i'm mistaken,
    i think bin laden was removed from the CIA payroll in early 2000.
    i also think Noriega is still on it.
    scary?!
  • Bluedove, not to be repetitive but my point is that many policies supported by the right wing that are labeled "conservative" are actually anything but that. In fact, the extreme right wing, while it has many conservative social values, also has a distinct anarchist streak, which is the extreme opposite of conservatism. Small govt, guns for everyone, etc., are not conservative values at all. And I agree with you that they are hypocrites.

    As for the "war on terror", America's bloody hands, who's to blame, etc., I think the argument over who's right and who's wrong morally is completely subjective and essentially a waste of time. Ideally, we should be trying to make peace with the enemy. If the, "we won't bother you if you don't bother us" strategy works, I'm all for it. However, the pessimistic side of me believes that even if America were to back off, leave the Islamic world alone and always take the high road (which we should do anyway), our enemies might not be so gracious. In that case, it's not about who's right or wrong, it's just about whose side you're on.
  • escap wrote: If the, "we won't bother you if you don't bother us" strategy works, I'm all for it. However, the pessimistic side of me believes that even if America were to back off, leave the Islamic world alone and always take the high road (which we should do anyway)

    That would be nice if we could just leave them alone, but I agree with you we don't have much of a choice. Our economy is based on oil so we are forced to deal with them.
  • escap wrote: Bluedove, not to be repetitive but my point is that many policies supported by the right wing that are labeled "conservative" are actually anything but that. In fact, the extreme right wing, while it has many conservative social values, also has a distinct anarchist streak, which is the extreme opposite of conservatism. Small govt, guns for everyone, etc., are not conservative values at all. And I agree with you that they are hypocrites.
    I know...I agree with you. Sorry if I was unclear, but what you said is what I meant. The labels "liberal" and "conservative" have almost become meaningless because so many ideologies that people stuff into these two little words are completely contradictory. Might as well start calling it "red" and "blue".
  • Alex wrote: That would be nice if we could just leave them alone, but I agree with you we don't have much of a choice. Our economy is based on oil so we are forced to deal with them.
    Well, and then you get into the whole (very good) argument that the REAL way to end all this is to start weaning ourselves off of oil dependency! I mean, it's the smart thing to do regardless of current events since it's not a renewable resource and will run out eventually whether we have learned to live without it at that point or not...the war and all the issues surrounding it only make the case stronger.

    Of course, that's a VERY hard sell in our car- and foreign-goods-dependant culture, and the pragmatist in me is pretty sure absolutely nothing in the way of change in demand will happen until it's forced to by the cease of supply.


  • Well, and then you get into the whole (very good) argument that the REAL way to end all this is to start weaning ourselves off of oil dependency! I mean, it's the smart thing to do regardless of current events since it's not a renewable resource and will run out eventually
    agree, %100 and advocate daily for the gov to put $ into renewable energy.
    the irony and hypocrisy of it all is that according to the ASPO-Assoc. for the Peack Oil and Gas, what we are in danger of doing is using up oil so quickly that we cannot physically keep pace with the demand in our harvesting techniques, and not that oil will run out. (greedy bastards!)
    so it's a perfect time to advocate and put money into renewable resources...and not build more refineries. the money is going to be spent either way...the only difference is in who will make the money from the production and the sale.
    opec, unocal, bushies...guess who's in charge all over the world?
  • Carnivore wrote: [quote=Anonymous]I don't think it's fair to say that the US invasion has caused more deaths than under Saddam Hussein. I think that's more of a reflection of Hussein than the U.S. invasion, though. I can't subscribe to the idea that Hussein was relatively harmless compared to the U.S. He's a bad bad bad man. Unfortunately his dictatorship kept a country that had always teetered towards civil war together under the grips of fear and strong tribal rule.
    I never compared deaths due to the U.S. with deaths under Hussein. I compared them with deaths due to the subsequent insurgency (read my post above). I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the simplistic idea that Hussein was a "bad man", although the then Republican administration didn't seem to have any problem with him when he was at war with Iran.
    image
  • How about a Politics Forum?

    I'd say I'm more centered politically than most of my friends which is kind of scary because I'm pretty left wing. I am starting to see the Libertarian light though.
  • I would like to add one to the tally of liberal who is really

    socialist, everyone should have medical care and free school though college, and screw the oil companies!

    conservative, conserve life, conserve resources, and conserve the lies I am willing to accept a few but jesus!

    It seems to me "conservative" is none of those things.

    But then again the "conservatives" are unraveling right now, unsure whether they are to support the war, support "Intelligent Design", or even just stay the course. I think many reasonable "conservatives" are beginning to realize ther group was hijacks by right wing psychopaths.

    I think there is also a problem of people voting, I hate to say it but in mostly red states, who are not educated enough to see through the fear propaganda that channels and especially fox seem to drive becasue they coincide with good profits.

    I'd agree with former commants that the justification for the war has changed as previous reasons did'nt pan out, but this in fact is just another factor of the awful and unrealistic management the Iraq conflict is run by.
  • bluedove wrote: [quote=Alex]That would be nice if we could just leave them alone, but I agree with you we don't have much of a choice. Our economy is based on oil so we are forced to deal with them.
    Well, and then you get into the whole (very good) argument that the REAL way to end all this is to start weaning ourselves off of oil dependency! I mean, it's the smart thing to do regardless of current events since it's not a renewable resource and will run out eventually whether we have learned to live without it at that point or not...the war and all the issues surrounding it only make the case stronger.

    Of course, that's a VERY hard sell in our car- and foreign-goods-dependant culture, and the pragmatist in me is pretty sure absolutely nothing in the way of change in demand will happen until it's forced to by the cease of supply.

    At least we will be able to count on your blue vote in a red state.
  • Captain M wrote:

    At least we will be able to count on your blue vote in a red state.
    Absolutely. Two votes coming soon :D
  • Subject: Re: semantics

    rhodamine wrote: semantics are a bitch
    Exactly.

    So, in this case, I think we have to be very careful when using the word "conservative" and lumping all "conservatives" into one homogenous pot: Social Conservative; Fiscal Conservative; Christian Conservative; Paleoconservative; Neonconservative ... all the way to what I think is the most extreme form of conservatism: Nationalism (and its corollaries nazi-ism, stalinism ... totalitarianism ...)

    There is a spectrum. And within the spectrum there is fluidity. There are so many "brands" ... and the one term we hear bandied about these days ... "neocon" ... is actually a movement that in some respects aimed to move conservatism somewhat to the LEFT. Now it's the "neocons" who are being vilified as the "hard-right" conservative hawks.

    What is it that William Kristol said? ... "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged ..." Or as an economics professor of mine once, hmmm, professed (exaggerating, of course): all young men are liberals, all old men are conservative. Do I agree with these off-the-cuff statements, no. Do I think there is a kernel of truth there? Perhaps yes.

    And, by the way ... the same argument holds for the term "liberal."
  • http://www.okcupid.com/politics

    I'm solidly socialist. Inneresting.
  • Wow, I'm a social, as well as an economic, liberal ... a Socialist. I did not know that. Don't tell my fellow MBAers that!!
    :shock:

    So much for voting for Bloomberg ...

    :oops:
  • try this one, pretty good:

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/


    to the point of the discussion, listened to cheney's speech this morning.
    its just so packed with emotional terms, semantic arguements, half-truths and total distortions that its hard to believe that the vast majority of bush supporter's aren't dupes.

    its difficult to proceed with a debate with them when you approach it from a standpoint of having to educate them as to the terms of the debate in the first place.

    this certainly smacks of "liberal elitism", but i can't count the amount of times i have been involved in just such an enterprise. otherwise seemingly intelligent people who you can't even get to the crux of the matter - when you must spend the first portion of the debate dispelling the administration's myths.

    i feel as though i've spent much of the last year explaining the conflict between secularist and fundamentalist factions throughout the region. pointing out, with examples, that the vast majority of the power in the region lies in tiny minorities of US supported secular minorites, and that fundamentalist populists, such as bin Laden appeal to the large disaffected, and disenfranchised populations. that Saddam feared these aspect of his population, and thus the idea of of a binLaden-Saddam connection is absurd on the face of it.

    most upsetting to me are probably "leftist" thinkers such as George Lakoff who in "Don't Think of an Elephant", bascially argues against education and proposes that conservatives must be beaten at the propaganda game. which is just another brand of anti-democratic thinking.
  • that was a fun test as well ... i think i'm gonna change my user name here to flutegandhi ...
  • Subject: I am an intelligent right winger ..of sorts

    Hi all, I am a n00b who lives near Lincoln/Underhill. Great site! A childfree rant about sprogwagons (giant SUV strollers) brought me to the Park Slope board, ha ha. FYI I am not childfree I have a grown son.

    The tests were a hoot, not surprisingly, according to both of them I am a Right Winger Libertarian LOL Socially liberal, economically conservative.

    There's more of us around than you think!

    If I was religious then I would be down with Bushie's crew. My lack of religion disqualifies me from the present day Republican party.

    My lack of sympathy for bums, troublemakers, and lazy farkers disqualifies me from the Democratic party. That must come from living in this ghetto nieghbourhood for almost 30 years..I got "mugged" by reality a long time ago. heh. :D
  • Subject: Re: I am an intelligent right winger ..of sorts

    rockhound wrote: My lack of religion disqualifies me from the present day Republican party.
    Well, yes. That, and Heaven.

    :wink:
  • Subject: Re: I am an intelligent right winger ..of sorts

    rockhound wrote: If I was religious then I would be down with Bushie's crew.
    Why is that?

    They aren't just religious morons, they're morons.
  • bluedove wrote: http://www.okcupid.com/politics

    I'm solidly socialist. Inneresting.
    I love how on the test's main page it's like Reagan, Bush, Trump, Ghandi, Stalin, Darth Vader and such, and then, right in the middle, there's Adam Sandler... awesome. I don't care what the test says, I'm whatever Adam Sandler is.

    Haha I wrote that then took the test... turns out I'm economically kind of in the middle, and socially liberal, right near the adam sandler picture...
  • You are a

    Social Liberal (78% permissive)

    and an...

    Economic Liberal (20% permissive)

    You are best described as a: Socialist

    You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
    loc: (105, -113)
    modscore: (12, 47)
    raw: (1644)
    Don't know what those last chunk of numbers mean.
  • Subject: Re: I am an intelligent right winger ..of sorts

    rockhound wrote: Socially liberal, economically conservative.
    Isn't that the quintessential "Rockefeller Republican" ... ???

    List of liberal or "Rockefeller" Republicans
    Abraham Lincoln--President of the United States
    John B. Anderson -- U.S. representative from Illinois, 3rd party candidate for President, 1980
    Sherwood Boehlert -- U.S. representative from New York
    Michael R. Bloomberg -- Mayor of New York
    Edward W. Brooke -- U.S. senator from Massachusetts
    John H. Chafee -- U.S. senator from Rhode Island
    Lincoln D. Chafee -- U.S. senator from Rhode Island
    William S. Cohen -- U.S. senator from Maine; secretary of defense
    Susan Collins -- U.S. senator from Maine
    Barber Conable -- U.S. representative from New York and president of the World Bank
    Silvio O. Conte -- U.S. representative from Massachusetts
    John Sherman Cooper -- U.S. senator from Kentucky
    Thomas Dewey -- governor of New York
    Rudolph W. Giuliani -- Mayor of New York (Debatably liberal promises with conservative actions)
    Mark O. Hatfield -- Governor of Oregon, U.S. senator from Oregon
    John Heinz -- U.S. senator from Pennsylvania
    Frank J. Horton -- U.S. representative from New York
    Amory Houghton -- U.S. representative from New York
    Jacob K. Javits -- U.S. senator from New York
    Jim Jeffords -- U.S. senator from Vermont
    Kenneth Keating -- U.S. senator from New York
    Robert M. La Follette, Jr. -- U.S. senator from Wisconsin
    Robert M. La Follette, Sr. -- governor of Wisconsin and U.S. senator from Wisconsin
    Fiorello H. LaGuardia -- New York City mayor
    John V. Lindsay -- U.S. representative from New York, New York City mayor
    Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. -- U.S. senator from Massachusetts
    Charles Mathias -- U.S. senator from Maryland
    Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback -- First African-American Governor of Louisiana
    Thomas L. McCall -- Governor of Oregon
    Constance A. Morella -- U.S. representative from Maryland
    Wayne L. Morse -- U.S. senator from Oregon
    Robert W. Packwood - U.S. senator from Oregon
    George Pataki -- Governor of New York
    Jack Quinn -- U.S. representative from New York
    Richard J. Riordan -- Mayor of Los Angeles
    George W. Romney -- Governor of Michigan
    Nelson A. Rockefeller -- Governor of New York, Vice President of the United States.
    Theodore Roosevelt -- President of the United States
    Chris Shays -- U.S. representative from Connecticut
    Alan K. Simpson -- U.S senator from Wyoming
    William W. Scranton -- Governor of Pennsylvania
    Margaret Chase Smith -- U.S. senator from Maine
    Olympia Snowe -- U.S. senator from Maine
    Harold Stassen -- Governor of Minnesota and perennial presidential candidate
    James R. "Big Jim" Thompson -- Governor of Illinois
    Earl Warren -- Governor of California and Chief Justice of the United States
    Lowell P. Weicker Jr. -- U.S. senator from Connecticut, Governor of Connecticut
    William F. Weld -- Governor of Massachusetts
    Wendell Willkie -- Republican candidate for president
    Malcolm Wilson -- Governor of New York

    (list from Wikipedia)

    Bob Packwood, yeah!!

    :wink:
  • I don't know if I should be happy or sad that, on the brink of turning 25, I still laugh as hard as I did in seventh grade when I hear the name "Bob Packwood."

    Almost, almost as funny as Dick Armey. But not quite.
  • The test is kind of silly. It says I'm more leftist and libertarian than Gandhi!
  • teddyballgame wrote: I don't know if I should be happy or sad that, on the brink of turning 25.
    not to worry ... i'm on the brink of turning 40 ... (uh, well, hmmm, yeah, ok ... 40-something) and i'm still laughing ...

    :shock:
  • Carnivore wrote: The test is kind of silly. It says I'm more leftist and libertarian than Gandhi!
    I don't think the pictures actually mean anything, they're just to give you a general idea of what you're looking at.
  • Subject: Re: I am an intelligent right winger ..of sorts

    Oiseau wrote: [quote=rockhound]If I was religious then I would be down with Bushie's crew.
    Why is that?

    They aren't just religious morons, they're morons.

    Yes and they've really gotten to be a goddamn embarrassment.

    People look on you pityingly when you travel to other continents (as I did in October) and are forced to admit to total strangers that you come from George Bush's America.

    He is regarded by many with a mixture of horror and amusement. People are like, "What will the cowboy do next?"

    It's a very strange situation for me, being embarrassed about where I come from. Then again, I was reassured by my foreign friends that New York isn't exactly America..I think they were trying to spare my feelings.

    :shock:
  • Yeah Rockhound, I'm in your corner. The only thing I object to is the use of the term "Economic Conservative". If I'm more permissive, doesn't that mean more liberal, by definition? Economic liberalism is the opposite of socialism, not the same.

    You are a

    Social Liberal
    (73% permissive)

    and an...

    Economic Conservative
    (78% permissive)

    You are best described as a:

    Libertarian


    You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
  • You are a

    Social Liberal
    (65% permissive)

    and an...

    Economic Liberal
    (18% permissive)

    You are best described as a:

    Socialist


    You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (56, -119)
    modscore: (11, 39)
    raw: (1536)
    And I'm sitting right between Hilary Clinton and Gorbechev :lol:
  • You are a Social Liberal (65% permissive)
    and an... Economic Liberal (13% permissive)

    You are best described as a: Socialist

    HOWEVER, I would vote Libertarian because they would legalize coffeshops like they have in Amsterdam. Then NYC could be considered without a doubt the greatest city in the world.
  • Candicissima wrote: I'm sitting right between Hilary Clinton and Gorbechev :lol:
    I'm smack between Thomas Jefferson and the Unabomber. This is the best test ever!
  • linusvanpelt wrote: I'm smack between Thomas Jefferson and the Unabomber.
    Man, if I had a dollar for every time I said that...
  • Just took the other test...
    You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an...Economic Liberal (15% permissive). You are best described as a: Socialist. You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (112, -131)
    modscore: (9, 48)
  • smack dab on Hilliary. wellesley would be proud :D
This discussion has been closed.