|
|
Post by expat on Sept 3, 2003 2:12:47 GMT -5
Hi Mo, I gladly concede the point on long-windedness. Politics by sound bite is like love-making by 5-second quickie, unzipping and rezipping included. There's got to be more depth than that.  Yet there is a very serious side here. Politics does not have to be like a Greek hoplite battle, with the strongest phalanx getting to mow the other down when its outweighs the other through shear superior pushing power. I'm very glad to discuss individual issues, yet I want an actual discussion and not a shouting match. Isn't political civility increasingly becoming an issue? I feel discussion works best when there is rapport and a little trust. Much of the discussion here at Rant (as elsewhere) rests on some pretty false assumptions about the other side, whichever that is. You, Mo, as a host, for goodness sake, ought to be trying to foster the environment for an honest conversation. Instead, you often seem more like a political morale officer assigned to the troops to keep their fighting spirit high. OK, maybe there is a role for that, but at least understand the risk of the consequences. Since the Internet allows us to remain anynomous, it is easier than ever before to promote anger and hate without being named. Does this thus not place greater responsibility on us for being fair? Isn't that ultimately what all of us want, fairness? As ye sow, and all that. The spew of nasty lefty books coming out is a reaction to nasty righty books, although which is the ultimate chicken and which the egg I can't say. Hamilton and Jefferson were at it too. If not we, who is to put an end to cheapshotting? Favre, in his comments above, was openly suggesting civil war. Do we really want to feed those attitudes if only indirectly by demonizing the other side? The coming election, like the last one, will probably set a new record for ugliness, and I do not want to be a part of that. Instead of Al Fraken, Ann Coulter, Mike Moore and Rush Limbaugh and so many other earning millions working us up into a lather, I'm inclined to seek common ground for whatever follows. Since we can't get rid of each other (I hope we never try!!) or much budge each other, accepting each other's right to exist and trusting in each other's basic humanity would be a better way forward than spiralling animosity. It's also pretty New Testiment. If this makes you spew, I have to ask why. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 3, 2003 2:34:27 GMT -5
Yikes! We found an issue on which we can agree! It's getting meaner and uglier all the time! Habit! I'm like a rabid dawg! |
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Sept 3, 2003 22:37:26 GMT -5
"Favre, in his comments above, was openly suggesting civil war. Do we really want to feed those attitudes if only indirectly by demonizing the other side? "
What's your point? Are you saying there was no content to the diatribe? Are you saying I just said "Kill 'em all?" Do you have an actual answer or just a sidestep?
|
|
|
|
Post by expat on Sept 4, 2003 6:25:53 GMT -5
Hi Favre,
I'll start with your own words from your second posting on page 1 above:
My point is not that you are evil or crazy, just very angry. You're probably right in the middle of the OK zone. I understood both your surrender letter and its retraction has simply signs of some sort of rough stretch you must be having. I even tried to cheer you up and show you that things are not nearly as bad you thought, and that Conservatives have actually been rather successful since the 1960s, 1970s, when you look at the big picture. Maybe things have not yet gone as far or as fast as some Conservatives desire, but that certainly doesn't mean the Left, especially if defined as Communism or Socialism is winning. It ain't! It has very demonstratably lost about everything.
What is left of the Left is liberalism (defined traditionally), which is use of regulation, but still based on private property and markets. Please read or reread my earlier post above, so I do not have to repeat it all again.
Thus my point becomes, that since Conservatism is really doing rather well, what is the basis of this antagonism that has some Conservatives defining the situation as so critical that armed revolution is coming and they are ready for the fight?
This is very strong stuff, and the consequences would be terrible for our country. In addition to the death and injuries (many lingering if not permanent), would be destruction of property, jobs, trust, cooperation, children scared out of the wits with risk of posttraumatic syndrome and so much more that has been well documented in places like Chechenia, former Yugoslavia, Chile, Afghanistan, etc.
My point is that this outcome is so awful that one better be damned sure that there is no other way out. I have tried to show you that Liberalism may not be quite the evil that many think when they equate is with Communism and Socialism, which are now truly in the dustbin of history. Good riddance.
Few Americans, and this includes liberals, especially after 1917 when the faultiness of these systems became increasingly on display, ever wanted Communism and Socialism. (These systems' heyday was really the late 1800s and very early 1900s, before is was ever put in practice and simply remained a rosy theoretical utopia of a better world.
The few that did believe after the 1920s were always the looney fringe. Although the Great Depression soured a lot of people on capitalism, by the 1940s, and especially in an American spared being ripped up by wars and with a booming 1950s economy, Communists were few and far between and always had more use as boogeymen than they had potential in taking over. Had it not been for the Vietnam War; I wonder whether the 1960s would not have been more like the 1950s. Certainly the New Left were even then market regulators so very much more than they ever demanded "public ownership of the means of production" in the plodding phraseology of Karl Marx, which few people could ever really understand, as he never used a two syllable word when a five syllable one was at hand.
Yes, Coulter and others can dig up quotes that sound awful, but what percentage of the population are these few loopos, and who really pays them that much mind? Similarly, Al Franken can find Conservatives who sound like Hitler's right hand man, but these too are very marginal in number and influence, and he too uses them for their boogeyman value to sell his books.
Thus, all I ask is that before civil war be taken as inevitable, the true nature of liberalism be examined. Is it really the same as Communism and Socialism? Really?
I also ask that people recognize that there is a lot of money to be made in painting foes as extreme devils, and that Mike Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh are personally doing very well economically by playing peoples' fears off against the other. News in America is business and becoming a subcategory of the entertainment industry, where anything seems to go. It is inherently unfair of Mike Moore to make all businessmen look like Uncle Scrooge and Simon McGree and it is equally unfair of Coulter to make all liberals look like Joe Stalin.
This bugs the bejeebies out of me, because we are seeing real hatred of our fellow countrymen. This kind of talk appeared in Serbia in the 1980s, in Russia in the 1910s, in Rwanda in the 1990s, in Germany in the 1930s, the US in the 1850s. This kind of talk is not innocent of consequence.
Your own comments, which I quoted above, indicate that you have taken some of these of the angriest sentiments to heart and you state your willingness to participate in a fight. Before this comes to pass, I want all Americans to simply calm down and take a hard look at themselves, their spokesmen, their motivations and their foes. Are things really so bad as some say, or have we lost out composure here? I ask this of Liberals and Conservatives: is your demonization fair and what does it lead to? I am equally on the case of overzealous, unfair liberals on their web sites too. I want debate: reasoned, intelligent, factual debate. And ideally both sides ought to be able to smile at their own foibles and admit they have some real characters goofing up the cause too, instead of always blindly defending everyone and everything one’s own side does lest the facade show a crack. Pride cometh before the fall, right? And friend, we American political partisans of whatever stripe are nothing if not proud.
Neither side is close to perfect, how could it be, as each is based on we very fallible humans? Nor is either side close to evil incarnate. To believe so invites real trouble. Is not the message of the Constitution and the Bible similar in that things are to be worked out with some degree of love and understanding of (and maybe especially) our foes?
That's my point.
I am sorry that you took offense at my reference, and I hope this answer seems substantive and not a sidestep to you. I'll be glad to discuss this with you more, but I do ask you to be civil and not so touchy. I recognized a bit of my own recent past in your first two postings above, which seemed really stressed out. I had the old midlife crisis, lost a son, got downsized out of a job, got overworked in another, quit and started my own company, all under severe back pain over a decade ago and wasn't far from a crisis of faith too. Add depression. I saw the world in very very bleak terms too. It took work and is much better now. Quit letting fear leading you to hate and tearing up your soul. Hate ruins one’s private life and health and never changes its object. We can and work this out if we all open up and admit we want it to.
Thus, your first two letters with their mood swings kinda hit home emotionally, and even if I do not agree with you much politically, I felt a bit connected with the tone. I used to hate politically. Now all I see are troubled brothers and sisters. Object to your foe’s idea, not the person. That's why I wrote such a long posting trying to show you all is not lost, and it's also why I bother admitting the stuff about myself. When things seem so very very bleak and there is some chance that your perception really is being skewed through outside events, it may be time to slow down, ease off and reconsider why one is so deeply worked up by politics. You have more to win by relaxing your fears than tightening them ever more.
Best wishes. May you find Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Sept 4, 2003 11:14:54 GMT -5
Find peace? I think I have found it now because it took three beers to get all the way through that post! Thanks for the explanation though.
|
|
|
|
Post by expat on Sept 4, 2003 12:37:56 GMT -5
Hey, no problem. Here's mud in your eye!  |
|
|
|
Post by garrett7855 on Sept 5, 2003 20:22:24 GMT -5
Expat-
While I will gladly concede your point about politics in sound bites, I feel it appropriate to remind you that, unfortunate as it may be, all to few really take the time to do more than skim through long, involved discussions. I have, on more than one occaision, been guilty of this myself.
I know that when I do this, I sometimes miss the meat of the arguement. I can't help feeling that some other, less dedicated folks would do the same.
Don't feel slighted by this--I do usually go back and re-reread to see what I missed. That's one of the great things about the sites longevity--I can actually be relatively certain the content will still be there when I dream up a clever enough rebuttal (and believe me, when it comes to rebutting you, I am frequently hard pressed).
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 23, 2003 12:33:20 GMT -5
It is sad to see the American people losing their resolve to fight the war on terror. Some of them (the liberals) are exhibiting the behavior that the terrorists claim to hate us for. They are carping about how much it costs and insisting we move on. They are giving aid and comfort to terrorists while acting like the materialistic, short sighted fools that bin laden claims Americans to be. Liberals should be ashamed of their insidious, treasonous behavior. Is there no limit to their seditious acts?
|
|
|
|
Post by proudmember VRWC on Sept 24, 2003 1:02:30 GMT -5
MO,
To pick up where you left off - As I walked the streets here in NYC, I was so disheartened to see people just going about their business. Of all places....here! Nobody was wearing flags on their lapels anymore. Nobody stopped to observe a moment of silence. I know they did at the ceremonies. But I was walking the streets on my way to work. I was thinking about exactly what you were saying. It's as if everybody either forgot we are at war and why or they just don't dare deal with it because it scares them so. It seems lately, that people feel it will all go away if we just stop defending ourselves and bring our troops home. is it going to take a 9/11 to the Nth degree to scare the s**t out of people, or will the left merely say we brought it on ourselves?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 24, 2003 9:51:02 GMT -5
Welcome proudmember VRWC! Great handle! I think it's safe to say that any problems with terrorists will be met with angry finger pointing by the left, claiming it is the result of aggressive foreign policy. They seem to be more angry with their own countrymen than they are with terrorists.They have maintained a position of hand wringing and appeasement that dates back to the cold war. Peace through strength proved to be the right course of action back then and it is right for our current struggles. I think you may be on to an important truth about human nature. It is easy for denial to creep into aspects of life that we are afraid of dealing with. People seem to want to forget that they are safer because of increased homeland security and the war in Iraq. We are not safe because of our enemies lack of trying. The terrorists have proven themselves to be a diabolical, patient people. We will only stay alive with strength and vigilance. *edited to add this article link. www.helenair.com/articles/2003/09/23/national/a02092303_02.txt |
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Oct 14, 2003 22:21:57 GMT -5
We'll I'm glad that we're done sterotyping communism to death. North Korea, Cuba, USSR, and China aren't communist nations. There has never been a communist nation in the history of the world. They just called themselves communists to gain support. Communism stands for pure democracy, and equality. This is why I'm proud to be a communist.
No, I'm not a patriot, because I don't believe in blind allegiance or Nationalism.
Shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Oct 29, 2003 16:16:58 GMT -5
Nemisis, you say you are a proud Communist. You say there is no "Communist" nation.
Just because I think we may be in agreement I'd like you to define, broadly, your concept of "Communism;" what it is, why you consider it a "pure democracy" and how you see it being implemented in a practical way.
So you know my view, I see Communism as an economic and social order concept, not as a political concept, and that it requires truly selfless and idealistic people for it to function properly.
Unlike society today, I don't intend the notions of idealism and selflessness to be perjorative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Oct 29, 2003 22:19:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 16, 2004 14:02:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jun 22, 2004 19:53:11 GMT -5
::)me too.
|
|
