You know it’s a soft market when we’re all spending this much time on the IJ board.
And for what it’s worth, most Repubs aren’t conservative just like most Dems aren’t liberal. Most people are right down the middle of the road. Me? Socially modrate, economic conservative. Noone tells me how to think, not Rush, not O’Reilly and certainly not psycho libs like Olbermann or Rosie. Chris Matthews rocks though.
DDD, that sentiment was put best when someone said(PT Barnum I think) there’s a sucker born every minute. Anyone who thinks that laying down arms and looking for a hug will get a bullet between the eyes from the nuts in this world. Cynical, but unfortunately this is true since human nature hasn’t changed.
if he is a liberal or conservative? Funny thing here is that the line has become so blurred its hard to tell any more. Look at Bush, he is supposed to be a conservative, but he has been fiscally irresponsible throughout his whole Presidency (something I thought was attributable only to libs, but I digress). He didn’t pay for WC, more like his accountant didn’t pay for it with Al’s money. Mistakes happen, give him time to correct it. Come on, lighten up.
I used to think F’n was funny when it was him & Davis on SNL. The bit about the Taglioni campaign was hilarious then, and would be just as funny today. But then it was just him and he became first boring, and then mean spirited. Maybe someone could explain rationally, how being liberal is justification to argue and advance a proposition or issue through vicious, personal diatribe and degradation.
“Maybe someone could explain rationally, how being liberal is justification to argue and advance a proposition or issue through vicious, personal diatribe and degradation.”
Because liberal political views spring from emotion. Liberals judge by intent rather than effect. Conservative views spring from facts. The consequences of actions are what’s important, not the hopes of the actors.
So e.g. libs are content to continue throwing billions of $$ at the welfare state because they mean well, despite the fact that it has destroyed vastly more lives than it has helped (which is close to zero). Conservatives can look at the situation and decide that it should be abandoned rather than fed, given the string of failures in its wake.
Therefore, the left gets very testy when its policies are questioned or disparaged, because they sense that their dearest ideals are being attacked despite their good intentions. So they lash out ferociously with ad hominem arguemtns and obfuscation designed to deflect attention on the questioner rather than on the problems caused by liberal “solutions.”
I will admit I am a moderate. I lean to the left on some issues, but more to the right on most issues. I do have a question for you. Again, this is from a moderate, not a “liberal” but what facts did the current administration use when invading Iraq? No WMD’s were found. I have seen a clip back from the 1990’s when Dick Cheney talked about Iraq and how invading it would be a mistake, take too long, etc, etc. In light of your explanation of all things liberal and conservative, how can you justify that? I am not trying to start an argument here, merely trying to show that blanket cliches do not fit either libs or conservatives. Either side can mistakes and base decisions (while not necessarily on emotion) but incorrect facts. While there is normally a hint of truth to cliches, I think we fall back on them too heavily when faced with opposition from the other side. A little bit of empathy or even civility would help to soften the divisive line. I believe both liberal and conservative are guilty of this, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise. I also don’t think the “they do it too” argument suffices for justification either.
John Kerry, both Clintons, Algore and others were adamant about Saddam having weapons banned by the cease fire agreement that ended Guf War I. So the fifteen violations of those terms for fourteen years despite fifteen UN resolutions left the civilized world with no options but to take action. The alternative to waiting for him to come clean was to await his use of WMD’s. Could a responsible leader have made that choice?
Chemical weapons were found in Iraq by US troops, as were missiles banned by the GWI cease fire.
Congress passed a “sense of the congress” resolution in the 90’s (I forget the exact year) stating that it was official US policy to seek regime change in Iraq.
The Chech and Brit intel agencies stand by their stories that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium in Africa and that Saddam’s agents were meeting with Al Qaeda.
Abu mussad al Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, and other AQ and non-AQ terrorists were in Baghdad with Saddam’s permission.
Iraq was on the “watchlist of terrorist sponsoring nations.”
Saddam was paying $25k to suicide bombers who killed Jews.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Thank you kindly! LOL
Please allow me to return the favor…
=D
Cool… Pope Dread.
On your election to the high holy office, I will tell people that I once spoke to you. It will be a nice story.
Although ammusing on SNL, he has been a political activist for quite a while. He is well spoken and actually well versed on the topics of the day.
He certainly can’t be any worse of choice then any other recent actor who has run for public office.
You know it’s a soft market when we’re all spending this much time on the IJ board.
And for what it’s worth, most Repubs aren’t conservative just like most Dems aren’t liberal. Most people are right down the middle of the road. Me? Socially modrate, economic conservative. Noone tells me how to think, not Rush, not O’Reilly and certainly not psycho libs like Olbermann or Rosie. Chris Matthews rocks though.
DDD, that sentiment was put best when someone said(PT Barnum I think) there’s a sucker born every minute. Anyone who thinks that laying down arms and looking for a hug will get a bullet between the eyes from the nuts in this world. Cynical, but unfortunately this is true since human nature hasn’t changed.
if he is a liberal or conservative? Funny thing here is that the line has become so blurred its hard to tell any more. Look at Bush, he is supposed to be a conservative, but he has been fiscally irresponsible throughout his whole Presidency (something I thought was attributable only to libs, but I digress). He didn’t pay for WC, more like his accountant didn’t pay for it with Al’s money. Mistakes happen, give him time to correct it. Come on, lighten up.
Doubt if Hillary wants abolish WC laws.
Why the hate?
I used to think F’n was funny when it was him & Davis on SNL. The bit about the Taglioni campaign was hilarious then, and would be just as funny today. But then it was just him and he became first boring, and then mean spirited. Maybe someone could explain rationally, how being liberal is justification to argue and advance a proposition or issue through vicious, personal diatribe and degradation.
“Maybe someone could explain rationally, how being liberal is justification to argue and advance a proposition or issue through vicious, personal diatribe and degradation.”
Because liberal political views spring from emotion. Liberals judge by intent rather than effect. Conservative views spring from facts. The consequences of actions are what’s important, not the hopes of the actors.
So e.g. libs are content to continue throwing billions of $$ at the welfare state because they mean well, despite the fact that it has destroyed vastly more lives than it has helped (which is close to zero). Conservatives can look at the situation and decide that it should be abandoned rather than fed, given the string of failures in its wake.
Therefore, the left gets very testy when its policies are questioned or disparaged, because they sense that their dearest ideals are being attacked despite their good intentions. So they lash out ferociously with ad hominem arguemtns and obfuscation designed to deflect attention on the questioner rather than on the problems caused by liberal “solutions.”
I will admit I am a moderate. I lean to the left on some issues, but more to the right on most issues. I do have a question for you. Again, this is from a moderate, not a “liberal” but what facts did the current administration use when invading Iraq? No WMD’s were found. I have seen a clip back from the 1990’s when Dick Cheney talked about Iraq and how invading it would be a mistake, take too long, etc, etc. In light of your explanation of all things liberal and conservative, how can you justify that? I am not trying to start an argument here, merely trying to show that blanket cliches do not fit either libs or conservatives. Either side can mistakes and base decisions (while not necessarily on emotion) but incorrect facts. While there is normally a hint of truth to cliches, I think we fall back on them too heavily when faced with opposition from the other side. A little bit of empathy or even civility would help to soften the divisive line. I believe both liberal and conservative are guilty of this, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise. I also don’t think the “they do it too” argument suffices for justification either.
John Kerry, both Clintons, Algore and others were adamant about Saddam having weapons banned by the cease fire agreement that ended Guf War I. So the fifteen violations of those terms for fourteen years despite fifteen UN resolutions left the civilized world with no options but to take action. The alternative to waiting for him to come clean was to await his use of WMD’s. Could a responsible leader have made that choice?
Chemical weapons were found in Iraq by US troops, as were missiles banned by the GWI cease fire.
Congress passed a “sense of the congress” resolution in the 90’s (I forget the exact year) stating that it was official US policy to seek regime change in Iraq.
The Chech and Brit intel agencies stand by their stories that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium in Africa and that Saddam’s agents were meeting with Al Qaeda.
Abu mussad al Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, and other AQ and non-AQ terrorists were in Baghdad with Saddam’s permission.
Iraq was on the “watchlist of terrorist sponsoring nations.”
Saddam was paying $25k to suicide bombers who killed Jews.
For “mainstream” sources for these and similar items, go here:
http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm.
He who hesitates is lost.