-
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The TMF is sponsored by:
War against Terrorism
- Thread starter Sandman
- Start date
thenaveltickler
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 84
- Points
- 0
It should include the I.R.A., North Korea and African extremist groups but as I continue to hear more and more liberal bitching and moaning I have a bad feeling that it will be limited to Arab only terrorist groups, if it even gets past Bin Laden's group. So we'll have to wait for thousands of more innocents to get killed before we truly rectify the problem.
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,820
- Points
- 0
Second The Motion...
I'm with you on this my friend, but like NT, I think the notoriously short American attention span and the squeamishness of the liberal establishment will abort the effort way too soon. Then more innocents will have to die before we get serious. Hope I'm wrong...
Strelnikov
I'm with you on this my friend, but like NT, I think the notoriously short American attention span and the squeamishness of the liberal establishment will abort the effort way too soon. Then more innocents will have to die before we get serious. Hope I'm wrong...
Strelnikov
Hey now..
Don't violate your own rules, Strel, with blanket terms like "squeamishness of the liberal establishment" -- remember, like I told you, I'm a liberal on stuff like the rights of ordinary working-class folks or on not poisoning the water too much or building too many highways and not enough railroads; but I'm fully behind whatever we've got to do to end terrorism. In fact, I personally don't see how you can call yourself a liberal -- which implies to me a concern for all people, even the mildest of the meek -- and NOT want to stand in the way of terrorism, since terrorism claims the lives of innocents.
Jesse Jackson may be a blithering fool, and 18-year-old know-nothings may be marching in Washington and badmouthing the country that pays their tuition, but lets don't lump us all together. Some of us have actually read Ecclesiastes: "A time for peace and a time for war."
Don't violate your own rules, Strel, with blanket terms like "squeamishness of the liberal establishment" -- remember, like I told you, I'm a liberal on stuff like the rights of ordinary working-class folks or on not poisoning the water too much or building too many highways and not enough railroads; but I'm fully behind whatever we've got to do to end terrorism. In fact, I personally don't see how you can call yourself a liberal -- which implies to me a concern for all people, even the mildest of the meek -- and NOT want to stand in the way of terrorism, since terrorism claims the lives of innocents.
Jesse Jackson may be a blithering fool, and 18-year-old know-nothings may be marching in Washington and badmouthing the country that pays their tuition, but lets don't lump us all together. Some of us have actually read Ecclesiastes: "A time for peace and a time for war."
Sad....
No, they are wannabes who like attention at any cost. Personally I think those people are the most dangerous form of distraction we will experience in this battle. They deflect attention and wear on your nerves with their antics. Unfortunately our press insists on covering that minority instead of the huge number of youths that are engaged in either productive activity or actual thoughtful discourse using reason and logic. Q
No, they are wannabes who like attention at any cost. Personally I think those people are the most dangerous form of distraction we will experience in this battle. They deflect attention and wear on your nerves with their antics. Unfortunately our press insists on covering that minority instead of the huge number of youths that are engaged in either productive activity or actual thoughtful discourse using reason and logic. Q
I personally believe that a lot of the younger protesters are would-be hippies who are sorry they missed the Sixties and who think they are being GROOVY by doing this. Entirely missing the point, of course, that this situation couldn't be more different from Vietnam if it set out to be.
*steps up to the soapbox*
Well thanks for directing me to the proper thread for this discussion,
Scot, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post as you seemed to have covered all the bases. The members of our generation (I'm 23)have basically lived our lives in a bubble up to this point. I believe that the idea of going to war (no one really counts the Gulf War)is simply unfathomable to us. Not counting those who protest to make a fashion statement, I think many are opposed to significant military action because up until now, all foreign relations problems have been handled with sanctions and a few cruise missiles. Of course, as others in this thread have already stated, many are simply opposed to military action for any purpose.
I never envisioned myself saying this, but I applaud the Bush administration for the way the situation has been handled thus far. The emphasis has been on developing a long term plan to protect America and our allies from terrorism rather than immediately blowing up anyone caught wearing a turbin (the cry of the fringe directly opposite the protesters). At this time, it is EXTREMELY important to let our democracy shine through as an example to those who threaten us rather than recoil in fear, sacrificing valuable civil liberties in the process.
giu
(btw the technical term for the American system of government is "representative democracy")
Well thanks for directing me to the proper thread for this discussion,
Scot, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post as you seemed to have covered all the bases. The members of our generation (I'm 23)have basically lived our lives in a bubble up to this point. I believe that the idea of going to war (no one really counts the Gulf War)is simply unfathomable to us. Not counting those who protest to make a fashion statement, I think many are opposed to significant military action because up until now, all foreign relations problems have been handled with sanctions and a few cruise missiles. Of course, as others in this thread have already stated, many are simply opposed to military action for any purpose.
I never envisioned myself saying this, but I applaud the Bush administration for the way the situation has been handled thus far. The emphasis has been on developing a long term plan to protect America and our allies from terrorism rather than immediately blowing up anyone caught wearing a turbin (the cry of the fringe directly opposite the protesters). At this time, it is EXTREMELY important to let our democracy shine through as an example to those who threaten us rather than recoil in fear, sacrificing valuable civil liberties in the process.
giu
(btw the technical term for the American system of government is "representative democracy")
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,820
- Points
- 0
Mea F%#king Culpa
Sorry Daumantas - you're right. I should have just said "squeamishness of the Establishment" without the adjective. The squeamishness may be more a function of elite attitudes and more-moral-than-thou posturing than of their (predominantly) liberal views. E. J. Dionne made this point in an op-ed piece a week ago, when he said that liberals will support this war because it's all about protecting the innocent from evil.
George Orwell's 1942 analysis of pacifism still holds true. British pacifists wanted Britain not to fight. The same was true of Nazi Germany. Since the Nazi government was evil, and the pacifists shared its aim, the pacifists were evil, QED. We can say the same about the current bunch. There's nothing moral about standing aside when someone is trying to commit murder. The true moral position is to defend innocent life, by any means necessary.
Then there's conservatives like me. I'd like to see these scum who talk about the wrath of God, experience it at first hand. Maybe at a Bingo game at the mosque - call out "B-52" and watch 'em scatter!
Strelnikov
Sorry Daumantas - you're right. I should have just said "squeamishness of the Establishment" without the adjective. The squeamishness may be more a function of elite attitudes and more-moral-than-thou posturing than of their (predominantly) liberal views. E. J. Dionne made this point in an op-ed piece a week ago, when he said that liberals will support this war because it's all about protecting the innocent from evil.
George Orwell's 1942 analysis of pacifism still holds true. British pacifists wanted Britain not to fight. The same was true of Nazi Germany. Since the Nazi government was evil, and the pacifists shared its aim, the pacifists were evil, QED. We can say the same about the current bunch. There's nothing moral about standing aside when someone is trying to commit murder. The true moral position is to defend innocent life, by any means necessary.
Then there's conservatives like me. I'd like to see these scum who talk about the wrath of God, experience it at first hand. Maybe at a Bingo game at the mosque - call out "B-52" and watch 'em scatter!
Strelnikov
Last edited:
Yikes...
Ya know..you're pretty mean for an old guy Strel...haven't you "mellowed" yet? Anyway, I guess I didn't put my point across (as usual) regarding these protesters.....I just don't like the fact that THEY are getting TV face time when there's plenty of other perfectly newsworthy stories going on that reflect the gravity and general consensus of the nation. This is what I feel makes it "dangerous"...it will encourage more of the same behavior. And since you seem to be a WW fan/buff Strel, perhaps you know where my screen handle came from? Maybe not...it's a bit obscure. I picked it off the British Navy, their subkillers were designated as Q ships....basically looked harmless, but packed a ton of firepower beneath their placid exterior. Fun facts that no one needs to know...sigh. Q
Ya know..you're pretty mean for an old guy Strel...haven't you "mellowed" yet? Anyway, I guess I didn't put my point across (as usual) regarding these protesters.....I just don't like the fact that THEY are getting TV face time when there's plenty of other perfectly newsworthy stories going on that reflect the gravity and general consensus of the nation. This is what I feel makes it "dangerous"...it will encourage more of the same behavior. And since you seem to be a WW fan/buff Strel, perhaps you know where my screen handle came from? Maybe not...it's a bit obscure. I picked it off the British Navy, their subkillers were designated as Q ships....basically looked harmless, but packed a ton of firepower beneath their placid exterior. Fun facts that no one needs to know...sigh. Q
Thanks Strel - you are indeed a gentleman and a scholar.
Scot - one minor correction: I think it "Rebel Without a Cause", starring James Dean, that had the "What are you rebelling against?" "Whatcha got?" dialogue. Of course, I've very occasionally been known to be wrong before...
Scot - one minor correction: I think it "Rebel Without a Cause", starring James Dean, that had the "What are you rebelling against?" "Whatcha got?" dialogue. Of course, I've very occasionally been known to be wrong before...
the "Liberal Establishment" ??!!
Strel --
Do you actually consider the current U.S. establishment liberal? Are you and I living on the same planet?! Republicans firmly control the executive branch, the judicial branch and half of the legislative branch (the Senate). The Democrats cling to a slim majority in the House of Representatives. What *would* it take for you to consider the establishment conservative?
Strel --
Do you actually consider the current U.S. establishment liberal? Are you and I living on the same planet?! Republicans firmly control the executive branch, the judicial branch and half of the legislative branch (the Senate). The Democrats cling to a slim majority in the House of Representatives. What *would* it take for you to consider the establishment conservative?
Actions?
I'm guessing....conservative actions of some sort...lol? I personally would call this bunch middle of the road, but I also tend to lean towards a more definitive brand of politics myself. Not as bad as that other grumpy old man, but....close. Q
I'm guessing....conservative actions of some sort...lol? I personally would call this bunch middle of the road, but I also tend to lean towards a more definitive brand of politics myself. Not as bad as that other grumpy old man, but....close. Q
thenaveltickler
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 84
- Points
- 0
MN Tickle - there always is a liberal and conservative establishment...it's called politics in the United States and it's on Planet Earth
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,820
- Points
- 0
The Establishment
Republican control of the White House and House of Reps (sort of) has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about the elite, daddy-went-to-Yale-and-so-did-I, we're-ever-so-much-better-than-those-unwashed-louts-who-believe-in-MORALITY, Establishment. Thomas Sowell calls them "The Anoited." Academic and media liberals are part of this group. So are country-club Republicans, who roll their eyes when grass roots political workers ask to have THEIR views considered, and whose primary function is to stab conservatives in the back. Jim Jeffords is their poster boy.
One reason true reform doesen't have a chance is that these folks are very good at co-opting newcomers. Failing that, they stonewall them until they give up in disgust and go home.
Anyone else remember Jeremiah Denton? He was a USN aviator who was shot down over Hanoi and spent years in the Hanoi Hilton. He went back on active service after his release and retired as a Rear Admiral. Later, he served one term as Republican US Senator from Alabama. He was defeated by the current incumbent, Richard Shelby, more conservative and thus closer to the Alabama political mainstream. Afterward, Bill Buckley said to Denton, "Jerry, do you know why you lost? You were in a Vietnamese prison for 6 years and never gave in. You were in DC for less than 6 months, and you went over to the enemy."
Strelnikov
Republican control of the White House and House of Reps (sort of) has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about the elite, daddy-went-to-Yale-and-so-did-I, we're-ever-so-much-better-than-those-unwashed-louts-who-believe-in-MORALITY, Establishment. Thomas Sowell calls them "The Anoited." Academic and media liberals are part of this group. So are country-club Republicans, who roll their eyes when grass roots political workers ask to have THEIR views considered, and whose primary function is to stab conservatives in the back. Jim Jeffords is their poster boy.
One reason true reform doesen't have a chance is that these folks are very good at co-opting newcomers. Failing that, they stonewall them until they give up in disgust and go home.
Anyone else remember Jeremiah Denton? He was a USN aviator who was shot down over Hanoi and spent years in the Hanoi Hilton. He went back on active service after his release and retired as a Rear Admiral. Later, he served one term as Republican US Senator from Alabama. He was defeated by the current incumbent, Richard Shelby, more conservative and thus closer to the Alabama political mainstream. Afterward, Bill Buckley said to Denton, "Jerry, do you know why you lost? You were in a Vietnamese prison for 6 years and never gave in. You were in DC for less than 6 months, and you went over to the enemy."
Strelnikov
Funny, I seem to remember a time when republicans/conservatives had annointed themselves the moral standard bearers, and pointed fingers at liberals/democrats for being amoral. Are we now to believe that "country club" republicans are also part of the problem? And that they are no different from the academic and media liberals?!
Sounds like it takes a card carrying moral majority member to qualify as a *true* conservative in your book, Strel. Isn't Bush's "faith-based" initiative enough to satisfy your state-mandated-morality craving? Bush wants to create a state sponsored church, and he believes that lowering taxes is the answer to every problem facing government. And yet his administration still isn't conservative enough for you?
Are you looking for President Falwell?
Sounds like it takes a card carrying moral majority member to qualify as a *true* conservative in your book, Strel. Isn't Bush's "faith-based" initiative enough to satisfy your state-mandated-morality craving? Bush wants to create a state sponsored church, and he believes that lowering taxes is the answer to every problem facing government. And yet his administration still isn't conservative enough for you?
Are you looking for President Falwell?
Last edited:
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,820
- Points
- 0
Where Did *THAT* Come From?
MN, are you sure you read my post? Please re-read it and try again, you're responding to things that I didn't say.
Strelnikov
MN, are you sure you read my post? Please re-read it and try again, you're responding to things that I didn't say.
Strelnikov
Senator Strelnikov....: )
LOL....Falwell and you...oh no no no, someone wasn't reading the post correctly! Strel might be likely to team up with Clinton (cause Slick Willie is fun and a consistent huckster), but NEVER with that character! It's the equivalent of me and Rev Sharpton dancing....oooh...still laughing picturing Strel up there pounding the pulpit with those big hammy hands and thundering the "truth" down onto his flock! Gotta stop...belly is aching.....oooh....
LOL....Falwell and you...oh no no no, someone wasn't reading the post correctly! Strel might be likely to team up with Clinton (cause Slick Willie is fun and a consistent huckster), but NEVER with that character! It's the equivalent of me and Rev Sharpton dancing....oooh...still laughing picturing Strel up there pounding the pulpit with those big hammy hands and thundering the "truth" down onto his flock! Gotta stop...belly is aching.....oooh....
I have to agree with Strel on this,but from a different standpoint.It doesn't matter so much lately who is elected to office.There is a bureaucratic type of government that calls many of the shots in the US today.If the conservatives truly ran the country,many of the rules and guidelines of our government agencies would be defunded at best.
If the constitutionalist conservatives ruled,about 80% of our current government would be abolished.If you take a really good look and investigate,you would be shocked to find out how little an elected official's party or political philosophy matter.Many times,government takes care of government no matter the affiliation.
Meanwhile,the bureaucrats take and control more every day.Who ever voted them into office?There are numerous reports,exposees,and articles concerning various abuses by government agencies that go unchallenged every day.
In short,much of our country is run by other than our elected officials.A little research will prove this point well.
If the constitutionalist conservatives ruled,about 80% of our current government would be abolished.If you take a really good look and investigate,you would be shocked to find out how little an elected official's party or political philosophy matter.Many times,government takes care of government no matter the affiliation.
Meanwhile,the bureaucrats take and control more every day.Who ever voted them into office?There are numerous reports,exposees,and articles concerning various abuses by government agencies that go unchallenged every day.
In short,much of our country is run by other than our elected officials.A little research will prove this point well.
