Thursday, May 11, 2006

15 comments:

Simon said...

lol

Welcome to the bottomless pit of standing in the way of a civil war. It took 30 years to sort out Northern Ireland (so far). And America is making all the same mistakes we made.

JustinOther said...

The US is making even more mistakes I believe, unfortunately.

I hate to use the term quagmire, however...

Jason H. Bowden said...

Here's a cartoon for you guys.

Stardust said...

Jason...

That cartoon illustrates the finger pointing I am talking about. This happens on both sides...

when are people in charge going to start taking care of the problems of this country instead of trying to distract from their incompetency by picking on liberals?

Stardust said...

Jason - Here's one for you. Our commander in chief

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

Socialists, ahem, "liberals" and "progressives" want to replace incompetence with surrender. The people fighting us aren't misunderstood proletarians. But the left doesn't understand the current world war as a struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. Rather, they fit everything into a Leninist narrative about imperialism where greedy oil companies, defense contractors, and sometimes even PNAC Jews are oppressing authentic people who live in different cultures that should be respected.

Newsflash: Fanatics are flying airplanes into skyscrapers and so forth because they see liberal democracy as sinful.

I've quoted bin Laden at length on this blog already. Here's how Ahmadinejad explains it in his recent letter to Bush:

excerpts:

----------------------
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals ofhumanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Peace only unto those who follow the true path,

Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
--------------------

The people at Democratic Underground see things the same way you people do. I don't think The Strongly Worded Message will convince Ahmadinejad. It isn't that I don't trust Bush, but he'll be gone in less than two years. What reason do I have to trust YOUR side?

Kagemusha: "Actually if someone pointed a gun in my face and said, 'Let's talk,' I think I'd talk, myself."

Huffleclaw: "Iran has always been willing to 'talk', its BUSH whose been whining and demanding things no sane nation would submit to. Bush is pretending iran doesn't have the right to nuclear power under the non-proliferation treaty, something the media has 'forgotten' too."

DoYouEverWonder: "We've already lost but, for us to attack Iran would be insanity. I still hope that there are people within our own military that won't allow that to happen. But on the other hand there are dark players at work who want chaos. Then of course, there's the wild card called Israel, who may try the say trick they pulled on Iraq and just try to take out a few 'assets'."

This thread is a treat: Wesley Clark wants words with Iran, not war

Indiana Green (w/Karl Marx avatar) "I am so relieved to hear Wes Clark advocate diplomacy over bombs.
Clark doesn't get any press on the MSM so people like me have to rely on Clark's supporters in DU to keep us abreast of what he is up to."

Toucano: "Consistently wise and direct. There's something very special about him. I'm so glad he has remained involved regardless of whether he runs or not. Clark/Clinton '08?"

Husb2Sparkly: "More and more I am pleased to see message discipline from our leaders. Thank you, sir."

In light of this, is there any reason, any, that I should trust Democrats with national security right now? Note that these guys are saying exactly what you guys are saying.

Stardust said...

Jason - There is a big difference between Socialist and Liberal.

Socialism

Liberalism

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

Stardust said...

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[2]. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, "modern" liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has it roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism.

Stardust said...

Jason,

Liberals have common sense instead of trigger happy rednecks. It seems common sense says to handle things diplomatically if possible. What does YOUR side have to offer besides being the ones to start the xian/muslim prophesied Armagheddon? If we bomb first, they most certainly will do what you are so worried about and bomb Israel. Maybe if we can try diplomatic means or at least handle the situation with much thought, maybe we can prevent Israel from being attacked at all. Either way, Israel is in a precarious situation. But we know there will definitely be an attack on Israel by Iran if we go in there like crazy fools. They have suicide bombers ready to go all over the world. You are so scared about terrorists and the destruction of Israel, but at the same time you are wanting to get the ball rolling to do just that.

Stardust said...

Jason - Getting away from the subject of war...so you would like to see the U.S. come to be a one-party system with one forced set of ideals?

Jason H. Bowden said...

stardust --

I'm suggesting that the Democrats advocate action against groups, and sometimes governments run by Islamic supremacists because I'm **in favor** of liberal democracies, not one-party states ruled by people like Saddam Hussein. Socialists in contrast think liberal democracy is a sham, since they it makes people corrupt and greedy. There, they have common ground with the Islamists.

Today's "liberals" don't believe in cutting and/or eliminating socialist programs-- they think people have rights to things like health care and education and so forth. As a result, they believe we need giant Soviet-style bureaucracies to attain these ends, along with price controls for wages, medicine, gasoline. Today's "liberals" believe in social engineering -- racial preferences, censorship of hate speech, restrictions on campaign donations, high taxes, supression of religion -- all of which are not liberal ideas. The Marxist-Leninist narrative about imperialism, where corporations control governments to oppress other peoples, should be a dead giveaway about where much of the left stands today.

Stardust said...

they think people have rights to things like health care and education and so forth.

Isn't it in the best interests of our country to help those who cannot afford it to get health care and a good education?

Today's "liberals" believe in social engineering -- racial preferences, censorship of hate speech, restrictions on campaign donations, high taxes, supression of religion -- all of which are not liberal ideas.

Suppression of religion? That statement is absolutely untrue when most liberals are also xians. Most liberals support what the country was founded on...FREEDOM OF RELIGION...and protection of the rights of all citizens, including those of various faiths and people of no faith. (I thought you said you were an atheist. Have you converted recently or did you just fake being an atheist? Because it's xians who usually have the persecution complex.).

Stardust said...

Today's "liberals" believe in social engineering -- racial preferences, censorship of hate speech, restrictions on campaign donations, high taxes, supression of religion -- all of which are not liberal ideas.

Racial preferences? I don't see what you are getting at with that one.

As for campaign donations. Currently, it seems anyone who has money can run for president and those who aren't millionaires cannot. There are many intelligent and capable people who would make great leaders if they only had the money to fund a campaign. It would be great if there could be a way to allow each candidate EQUAL funding and equal media time instead of sons of rich oilmen buying elections.

outofcontrol said...

Jason

Fanatics hate us because we are a liberal democracy?
What should we be?
If liberal is a bad word, then Liberal Democracy is a bad phrase.
Again, What should this country be?

outofcontrol said...

Jason
Social Engineering?
The Moral Rich people in the past advocated helping those less fortunate.
By holding out the carrot of being rich, anarchy is prevented.
By sharing the wealth(taxes)Society as a whole prospers.
Our country is now in a time where the balance of social programs with the I want it all for me attitude is in conflict. From your comments I know what side you are on.
I am from a generation that never wants to ask for help.
You are from a generation that has had most things given to them.
Turn away from the dark side.