Bill O'Reilly says Iraq war a mistake
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Since 9/11, the left in this country has completely exposed itself as being so vehemently opposed to the political principles of the right that it will take what ever measures necessary to defeat them regardless of how extreme or treasonous.
Blowing up bridges? Assassinations? Poisoning the water supply? You and reality are hurtling apart. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Blowing up bridges? Assassinations? Poisoning the water supply?
Why bother to get their hands dirty when they have so much more effective means of achieving their goals.
John Carson wrote:
You and reality are hurtling apart.
I'm actually pretty sure that I understand reality far better than you would like for me to. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
espeir wrote:
Not good enough. He's not blood and you're not an American.
Fuck you. How dare you presume to know anything about my relationship with my brother-in-law. You're a pathetic little troll. Didn't I tell you to go stand in the corner? [^]
It doesn't matter if you're sleeping with him. It doesn't make them "your" soldiers because you're not an American.
-
If we're referring to the Kennedys, it's called "Camelot".
-
Stan, You can't be serious. Is this really what people think in the United States of America ? Or is it a "Stan" drum-beating obsession What do the people from the "left" in the USA actually think ? Would anybody from the "left" care to voice opinions !
I admit to presenting an extreme perspective on the issues. But how anyone can look at the politcal situation as it exists and come away with any other significant alternative explanation is beyond me. I see no attempt by the left to even pretend to disquise their agenda. Hell, they are shouting it from the roof tops. There is no doubt that the differnces currently dividing us politcally are far more extreme than those that actually caused our first Civil War. The motives of we 'conservatives' (actually the true liberals in this situation) are always dismissed as 'racist' or christian extremism, or Bush inspired propaganda or whatever. There is simply no indication of any kind of a willingness of those on the left to find a happy middle ground politically. A growing number of us on the right have simply had enough of this shit. We are tired of the insanity of the left, we are tired of finding every true principle of American civilization marginazliaed and disrespected. We are simply tired of the arrogance and ignorance of the left and their obsequious infatuation with all things European. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Can you please send me a picture of your head spinning when Jeb Bush is elected as our next President?
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I hear the Dixie Chicks are #1 on Billboard this week. Natalie Maines for President.:) John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
I hear the Dixie Chicks are #1 on Billboard this week. Natalie Maines for President.
President hell.... we are signing petitions to throw the crazy bitches out of Texas. And the Chicks were a lot better before Natalie.. Richard They really were a lot better in the beginning Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
I admit to presenting an extreme perspective on the issues. But how anyone can look at the politcal situation as it exists and come away with any other significant alternative explanation is beyond me. I see no attempt by the left to even pretend to disquise their agenda. Hell, they are shouting it from the roof tops. There is no doubt that the differnces currently dividing us politcally are far more extreme than those that actually caused our first Civil War. The motives of we 'conservatives' (actually the true liberals in this situation) are always dismissed as 'racist' or christian extremism, or Bush inspired propaganda or whatever. There is simply no indication of any kind of a willingness of those on the left to find a happy middle ground politically. A growing number of us on the right have simply had enough of this shit. We are tired of the insanity of the left, we are tired of finding every true principle of American civilization marginazliaed and disrespected. We are simply tired of the arrogance and ignorance of the left and their obsequious infatuation with all things European. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
all things European
All things European is not all bad. Some things that come out of the Council of Europe are strange, but, as an independant nation, the UK, like France, Germany etc have our own "way" of doing things. They may be more "socialistic" than outright capitalistic, but as stated, not all are bad, just a minority of such issues.
Stan Shannon wrote:
extreme perspective
Moderation is the key. Try it sometime.
-
I admit to presenting an extreme perspective on the issues. But how anyone can look at the politcal situation as it exists and come away with any other significant alternative explanation is beyond me. I see no attempt by the left to even pretend to disquise their agenda. Hell, they are shouting it from the roof tops. There is no doubt that the differnces currently dividing us politcally are far more extreme than those that actually caused our first Civil War. The motives of we 'conservatives' (actually the true liberals in this situation) are always dismissed as 'racist' or christian extremism, or Bush inspired propaganda or whatever. There is simply no indication of any kind of a willingness of those on the left to find a happy middle ground politically. A growing number of us on the right have simply had enough of this shit. We are tired of the insanity of the left, we are tired of finding every true principle of American civilization marginazliaed and disrespected. We are simply tired of the arrogance and ignorance of the left and their obsequious infatuation with all things European. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
I admit to presenting an extreme perspective on the issues.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is simply no indication of any kind of a willingness of those on the left to find a happy middle ground politically.
That seems a bit one sided no? Besides there is no middle ground any longer. All paths to the middle lead to MONEY. The country now operates with Capitalism at center, the core, the heart, not ideological principles. That is why, for example, we cannot get any campaign finance reform traction.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I admit to presenting an extreme perspective on the issues.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is simply no indication of any kind of a willingness of those on the left to find a happy middle ground politically.
That seems a bit one sided no? Besides there is no middle ground any longer. All paths to the middle lead to MONEY. The country now operates with Capitalism at center, the core, the heart, not ideological principles. That is why, for example, we cannot get any campaign finance reform traction.
Capitalism is an ideological principle and it has always been at the "center the core the heart" of our system of government. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Capitalism is an ideological principle and it has always been at the "center the core the heart" of our system of government. "You get that which you tolerate"
Sorry, forgot who I was talking to there. You don't believe that a country can have specific socialized programs and still have Capitalism at the core of its government. So for example Canada has Socialized medicine right? They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes? So where is that middle ground?
-
Huh? Why do you think Bush's poll numbers are so low. The 'people on the right' have been disagreeing with Bush on many things, including the war, for quite a while now. For my part, I think the war in Iraq was a mistake because before this nation ever commits troops to any foriegn combat again, we need to first bomb our own leftist elements into oblivion. No nation as badly divided as this one is politically has any hope of waging an effective military campaign any where for any purpose regardless of how justified. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
The 'people on the right' have been disagreeing with Bush on many things, including the war, for quite a while now.
Stan Shannon wrote:
before this nation ever commits troops to any foriegn combat again, we need to first bomb our own leftist elements into oblivion. No nation as badly divided as this one is politically has any hope of waging an effective military campaign any where for any purpose regardless of how justified.
I'm confused. You say that the left should be bombed into oblivion to avoid the "divided nation" thing, yet you admit that people on the right also disagree with the president? If you're going to claim that you need to destroy the people who disagree with the president before going to war, aren't you essentially admitting that people on the left AND some people on the right need to be "bombed into oblivion"? Here's a new slogan for you: advocate of bombing the left, middle, and some of the Right into oblivion. I'm sure we'll be entirely capable of waging war once we eliminate two-thirds of America! ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Sorry, forgot who I was talking to there. You don't believe that a country can have specific socialized programs and still have Capitalism at the core of its government. So for example Canada has Socialized medicine right? They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes? So where is that middle ground?
led mike wrote:
They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes?
I believe that the socialistic components will eventually eat the capitalistic ones. I think the process is inevitable and insidious.
led mike wrote:
So where is that middle ground?
Where it has always been - in the Jeffersonian ideal, unadulterated by Marx. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The 'people on the right' have been disagreeing with Bush on many things, including the war, for quite a while now.
Stan Shannon wrote:
before this nation ever commits troops to any foriegn combat again, we need to first bomb our own leftist elements into oblivion. No nation as badly divided as this one is politically has any hope of waging an effective military campaign any where for any purpose regardless of how justified.
I'm confused. You say that the left should be bombed into oblivion to avoid the "divided nation" thing, yet you admit that people on the right also disagree with the president? If you're going to claim that you need to destroy the people who disagree with the president before going to war, aren't you essentially admitting that people on the left AND some people on the right need to be "bombed into oblivion"? Here's a new slogan for you: advocate of bombing the left, middle, and some of the Right into oblivion. I'm sure we'll be entirely capable of waging war once we eliminate two-thirds of America! ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote:
I'm confused.
Yeah, I know.
Brit wrote:
Here's a new slogan for you: advocate of bombing the left, middle, and some of the Right into oblivion.
The current divisions between left and right are unresolveable by democratic processes. They have become too extreme. The differneces that exist within those respective political groups, however, are not all that far apart. No one on the right is opposed to the invasion of Iraq. MOst of us feel it was a legitimate use of American power. The opposition to Bush is primarily for his domestic behavior and to a much lesser extent with the way he has managed the war in Iraq. But those diffences are politically resolvable within the context of conseravtive principles, just as the differences on the left are resolvable within the context of collectivist principles. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Brit wrote:
I'm confused.
Yeah, I know.
Brit wrote:
Here's a new slogan for you: advocate of bombing the left, middle, and some of the Right into oblivion.
The current divisions between left and right are unresolveable by democratic processes. They have become too extreme. The differneces that exist within those respective political groups, however, are not all that far apart. No one on the right is opposed to the invasion of Iraq. MOst of us feel it was a legitimate use of American power. The opposition to Bush is primarily for his domestic behavior and to a much lesser extent with the way he has managed the war in Iraq. But those diffences are politically resolvable within the context of conseravtive principles, just as the differences on the left are resolvable within the context of collectivist principles. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
The current divisions between left and right are unresolveable by democratic processes. They have become too extreme.
What sort of resolution are you looking for? For everyone to agree? For as long as both sides seek power through elections rather than through violence, the democratic processes are coping just fine.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one on the right is opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
Bollocks. If you mean that almost everyone on the right would have been happy if the war had gone well and a stable more-or-less democratic government had been established, then you are probably correct. The majority of the left would also have been happy --- on balance --- in the same circumstances. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
led mike wrote:
They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes?
I believe that the socialistic components will eventually eat the capitalistic ones. I think the process is inevitable and insidious.
led mike wrote:
So where is that middle ground?
Where it has always been - in the Jeffersonian ideal, unadulterated by Marx. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where it has always been - in the Jeffersonian ideal, unadulterated by Marx.
Is that where you are, where the right is? If it is then how is that the middle?
led mike wrote:
Is that where you are, where the right is?
Jeffersonianism is the "far right". I didn't mean the political "middle", I meant the 'middle ground' in the sense that it is the one philosophy which purposefully adapts capitalism to democratci processess, its most sacred principle is private ownership of property and personal responsibility, both of which are only possible in capitalistic systems. The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The current divisions between left and right are unresolveable by democratic processes. They have become too extreme.
What sort of resolution are you looking for? For everyone to agree? For as long as both sides seek power through elections rather than through violence, the democratic processes are coping just fine.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one on the right is opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
Bollocks. If you mean that almost everyone on the right would have been happy if the war had gone well and a stable more-or-less democratic government had been established, then you are probably correct. The majority of the left would also have been happy --- on balance --- in the same circumstances. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
For as long as both sides seek power through elections rather than through violence, the democratic processes are coping just fine.
You seem to actually believe that the goals and objectives of the democratic party are somehow compatible with what the United States of America has ever been as a nation and as a people. The agenda of the left is to throughly overhaul the American way of life, to turn us into a European style Secular state, with Christianity driven from public view and Capitalism chained to socialistic principles. There is absolutely nothing promoted by the left that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the "right". There is nothing to resolve between them. Their goals are diametrically opposed on every single principle.
John Carson wrote:
The majority of the left would also have been happy --- on balance --- in the same circumstances.
The left has been doing everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen. Their greatest desire is for the US to lose in Iraq and elsewhere. Their greatest fear is an increase in the success and hegemony of America controlled by a "conservative" administration. Their goal is to do everything possible to limit the success of the current administration regardless of the cost. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
led mike wrote:
Is that where you are, where the right is?
Jeffersonianism is the "far right". I didn't mean the political "middle", I meant the 'middle ground' in the sense that it is the one philosophy which purposefully adapts capitalism to democratci processess, its most sacred principle is private ownership of property and personal responsibility, both of which are only possible in capitalistic systems. The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
I didn't mean the political "middle"
Oh, ok. I misunderstood that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination.
Now I assume you would consider me a leftist correct? If so since I am in full agreement with your statement as quoted how does that address the divisiveness issue?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I didn't mean the political "middle"
Oh, ok. I misunderstood that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The middle ground is not surrendering capitalism to socialism, it is simply having laws that gently manage capitalistic processess in order to support individualism, independence and self-determination.
Now I assume you would consider me a leftist correct? If so since I am in full agreement with your statement as quoted how does that address the divisiveness issue?
led mike wrote:
I am in full agreement with your statement
If so, than you should already know the answer to ... You don't believe that a country can have specific socialized programs and still have Capitalism at the core of its government. So for example Canada has Socialized medicine right? They are therefore not a Capitalist form of government but rather have a Socialist ideology at the core of their government, yes? You simply cannot mix Jefferson and Marx. Their philosophies are complete opposites and represent the opposing extremes of the political spectrum. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
John Carson wrote:
For as long as both sides seek power through elections rather than through violence, the democratic processes are coping just fine.
You seem to actually believe that the goals and objectives of the democratic party are somehow compatible with what the United States of America has ever been as a nation and as a people. The agenda of the left is to throughly overhaul the American way of life, to turn us into a European style Secular state, with Christianity driven from public view and Capitalism chained to socialistic principles. There is absolutely nothing promoted by the left that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the "right". There is nothing to resolve between them. Their goals are diametrically opposed on every single principle.
John Carson wrote:
The majority of the left would also have been happy --- on balance --- in the same circumstances.
The left has been doing everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen. Their greatest desire is for the US to lose in Iraq and elsewhere. Their greatest fear is an increase in the success and hegemony of America controlled by a "conservative" administration. Their goal is to do everything possible to limit the success of the current administration regardless of the cost. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
You seem to actually believe that the goals and objectives of the democratic party are somehow compatible with what the United States of America has ever been as a nation and as a people. The agenda of the left is to throughly overhaul the American way of life, to turn us into a European style Secular state, with Christianity driven from public view and Capitalism chained to socialistic principles.
You seem to want a theocracy ruled by the ghost of Thomas Jefferson (as interpreted by Pope Stan). If the objective of the left is as you say (though in fact the left is quite heterogeneous), then democracy gives the left the right to attempt to persuade the American people to go down that path. If US voters want to go down that path, they can elect a goverment advocating it. If they don't, then they can decline to elect such a government. Democracy in action.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely nothing promoted by the left that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the "right". There is nothing to resolve between them. Their goals are diametrically opposed on every single principle.
Uh huh. They disagree on whether women should be allowed to drive, for example. And on whether the President should be elected rather than chosen by some other means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left has been doing everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen.
Yeah. Like I said: blowing up bridges, conducting assassinations, poisoning the water supply. To this we can add: funding the Iraqi insurgency, leaking US battle plans, murdering the families of US service personnel, sabotaging military bases... Newsflash. Some of the left are actually serving in Iraq. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine