T Nation

New York Times: Op-Ed Idiots

Wonderful op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday. Nicholas Kristof. The thrust of the article seemed to be that any kind of attack on Iran to prevent it’s use of nuclear weapons, halt the production of nuclear weapons, etc. would be a tremendous error in judgment for the U.S. and/or Israel (with U.S. support, of course). Fair enough, you may say. But Kristof goes on to give his main reason for taking no action against Iran: It’s government is unstable. The Iranian people hate the government. And if we just leave it all alone, it will go away because, well, that government is going to get overthrown anyway. There will be a revolution, you see. And then everything will be okay and there will be no skin of our noses!

This should sound patently ridiculous, borderline insane to anyone with half a brain and a lick of common sense.

Let me see if I have this correct. I should NOT call the police on the guy stockpiling weapons across the street. I know he’s doing it. It’s not a secret. He WANTS to use the weapons to kill people. He’s as much as broadcast it to the neighborhood. But! He PROBABLY cannot afford that house because he is not working and the Home Owner’s Association is PROBABLY going to boot his ass and he’ll PROBABLY have to move pretty soon. So. It’ll all work itself out and I won’t have to do ANYTHING!

That about right?

See. This is why I equate liberalism with brain damage. How can anyone think this way? Head trauma? Acid flashback? Too much caffeine? Too much Katie Couric? Help me out here. I must be missing something. Does this make sense to anyone?

The op-ed reminded me of the last time this kind of wrong-headedness sent me into hysterics. It was a piece by Thomas Freidman. In it, he expressed his strong opinion that increased - and, in his view, unnecessary - security at United States embassies around the world was giving the U.S. a bad reputation, causing it to be viewed more negatively by the local citizenry. This kind of security, he said, puts American distrust of “foreigners” on full display. He went on to tell a story: He was at a concert in London when a young Arab man approached him. He lamented the increased security of some U.S. embassy somewhere in the Middle East. Security was too tight, he said. Anti-aircraft guns on the roof. Sandbags around the perimeter. What kind of message does that send? Freidman agreed. So much so that he wrote an article about it.

Alas, this one tidbit stuck out. Kind of caught my attention. The young Arab male shared this thought with dear Thomas. “A friend of mine wanted to bomb the embassy but security was so tight he couldn’t get near the place.”

Huh?

I’ll say it again.

Brain damage.

One writer makes a weak point about not attacking Iran, so you counter by saying liberalism is “braindamage”?

Headhunter? Is that you?

He doesn’t represent all liberals. Does Billy Graham represent all conservatives? Does Rupert Murdoch?

That’s what I thought.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
One writer makes a weak point about not attacking Iran, so you counter by saying liberalism is “braindamage”?

Headhunter? Is that you?

He doesn’t represent all liberals. Does Billy Graham represent all conservatives? Does Rupert Murdoch?

That’s what I thought.[/quote]

Billy Graham is a democrat, first off. Did you miss that story? It was a big one, dude! Must have been hungover that day.

As for Rupert Murdoch, I haven’t read much by him lately. What’s he come out with and I’ll tell you if ‘we’ agree with him.

But the main point is that liberal thought, by definition, makes no sense. I’m just giving a few examples. I could give more. Here I’m just citing two instances that I was particularly struck by.

Liberalism is expressed in varying degrees of stupidity. There are levels of implausibility and stupidity to the expression of liberal thought. Freidman and Kristof usually attain a pretty high level. Trudy Rubin usually rates high, too. Maureen Dowd, of course, inhabits her own higher order of liberal fuckheadedness.

Well, then you have a bunch of liberal idiots who are just too fucking stupid to even makes sense, so we can’t count on them. This includes Michael Moore, Jeanine Garaffalo, George Clooney, Sean Penn, and any other Hollywood/Actor type that opens their mouth or tries - as all of these asshats have - to pick up a pen and write for some left-wing rag (i.e. NY or LA Times, et al). Problem is, none of it makes any sense. It’s not even coherent enough to make you mad. Ever.

So, yeah. I cited two morons. But, they all say the same thing. They said it before WWII. They said it before and after 9/11. They said it during the Cold War. Do nothing. It’ll be okay. History has always shown otherwise, but we keep hearing it from the brain damaged liberal asshats.

Two of the tenets of liberalism are appeasement of the enemy and doing nothing when attacked. Both of those things = brain damage.

You seem to have more than a touch of it yourself, bro.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:

So, yeah. I cited two morons. But, they all say the same thing. They said it before WWII. They said it before and after 9/11. They said it during the Cold War. Do nothing. It’ll be okay. History has always shown otherwise, but we keep hearing it from the brain damaged liberal asshats.

Two of the tenets of liberalism are appeasement of the enemy and doing nothing when attacked. Both of those things = brain damage.

You seem to have more than a touch of it yourself, bro.[/quote]

Roosevelt did nothing? You sure about that?

He was arguably the most liberal president ever, and he was more than happy to enter World War II. In fact, there was only one vote against action after Pearl Harbor…apparently lots of liberals were on board back then.

I hate to tell you, but the Founding Fathers were all liberals. The overthrowing of the existing government in order to form a more perfect union? Dumping monarchies…Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry…these men were not conservatives.

Lincoln was the same way. By the conservative mantra nowadays, he should have stayed out of the Civil War- slavery was a business, and god forbid we touch that. Lincoln hated slavery, and the abolitionists that called loudest for the abolition of slavery were liberals from where? Boston of all places. Sorry man.

WWI? Hmmmmm…Woodrow Wilson got us into that one. Again…notorious liberal who even proposed the precursor to the UN, in his attempts to make a “League of Nations”.

Woodrow Wilson has always been easy for liberals to like. He was a reformer during the Progressive era, establishing an eight-hour workday, outlawing child labor, and busting trusts. He instituted the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve System, and created the parameters of American foreign policy that remain with us today. He also served as the great liberal link between Andrew Jackson and FDR, bringing the concept of a strong central government into the Democratic Party. Indeed, he becomes something of a father figure for 20th century liberalism.

http://www.documentaryfilms.net/Reviews/WoodrowWilsom/

I hate to say it, but even Vietnam was a liberal war. JFK sent advisors, LBJ escalated it…in between his Great Society Program, of course, which actually closed the gap between blacks and whites, rich and poor.

Well, we covered the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and even Vietnam.

I hate to tell you, but the whole idea of freeing the Iraqi people? That’s a liberal idea buddy. It’s called, “Nation building”, something your buddy Bush swore he wouldn’t do.

Man, you know, I can’t really think of a true conservative that ever started any war worth fighting. Before WWI and WWII, these guys were called “isolationists”.

What were you saying again?

Ah, if it`s stupid it is liberal, so every Liberal is stupid…

Got it, who knew life the universe and everything could be explained that easily?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:

So, yeah. I cited two morons. But, they all say the same thing. They said it before WWII. They said it before and after 9/11. They said it during the Cold War. Do nothing. It’ll be okay. History has always shown otherwise, but we keep hearing it from the brain damaged liberal asshats.

Two of the tenets of liberalism are appeasement of the enemy and doing nothing when attacked. Both of those things = brain damage.

You seem to have more than a touch of it yourself, bro.

Roosevelt did nothing? You sure about that?

He was arguably the most liberal president ever, and he was more than happy to enter World War II. In fact, there was only one vote against action after Pearl Harbor…apparently lots of liberals were on board back then.

I hate to tell you, but the Founding Fathers were all liberals. The overthrowing of the existing government in order to form a more perfect union? Dumping monarchies…Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry…these men were not conservatives.

Lincoln was the same way. By the conservative mantra nowadays, he should have stayed out of the Civil War- slavery was a business, and god forbid we touch that. Lincoln hated slavery, and the abolitionists that called loudest for the abolition of slavery were liberals from where? Boston of all places. Sorry man.

WWI? Hmmmmm…Woodrow Wilson got us into that one. Again…notorious liberal who even proposed the precursor to the UN, in his attempts to make a “League of Nations”.

Woodrow Wilson has always been easy for liberals to like. He was a reformer during the Progressive era, establishing an eight-hour workday, outlawing child labor, and busting trusts. He instituted the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve System, and created the parameters of American foreign policy that remain with us today. He also served as the great liberal link between Andrew Jackson and FDR, bringing the concept of a strong central government into the Democratic Party. Indeed, he becomes something of a father figure for 20th century liberalism.

http://www.documentaryfilms.net/Reviews/WoodrowWilsom/

I hate to say it, but even Vietnam was a liberal war. JFK sent advisors, LBJ escalated it…in between his Great Society Program, of course, which actually closed the gap between blacks and whites, rich and poor.

Well, we covered the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and even Vietnam.

I hate to tell you, but the whole idea of freeing the Iraqi people? That’s a liberal idea buddy. It’s called, “Nation building”, something your buddy Bush swore he wouldn’t do.

Man, you know, I can’t really think of a true conservative that ever started any war worth fighting. Before WWI and WWII, these guys were called “isolationists”.

What were you saying again?[/quote]

The Japanese got us into WWII. Roosevelt was finally forced to get into it.

Let’s try and deal with modern liberalism. Post WWII. You know. Around the time Truman was calling Stalin ‘Uncle Joe’ and there were more Communists working at the White House than in the Kremlin. OOOPS! That’s McCarthyism, right. Only problem is, there WERE Communists working at the White House. The recently opened KGB files name them. Funny. The Communists all worked for…democrats. Weird. I’ve yet to find those Communists hang out with republicans. Fact is, they share the same ideals. So it’s a natural fit.

You are right, though. Roosevelt and Truman, while socially liberal, had a much more aggressive foreign policy than the new breed, Clintonian, Kerryesque liberal. Actually, that’s not fair. Carter was the master of appeasement. It more or less started with that dipshit and has grown into the party/ideology of dipshits we see today.

I honestly believe stupidity can now be defined as the act of assigning one single train of thought with an entire group of people and, as a result, labeling them all “bad”. Oh, wait, that’s bigotry.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I honestly believe stupidity can now be defined as the act of assigning one single train of thought with an entire group of people and, as a result, labeling them all “bad”. Oh, wait, that’s bigotry.[/quote]

ah. the bigotry card. shit. i got hit with it again!

i’m a bigot against liberals? or just in general?

do you mean to tell me that…i’m…stupid? oh. no!

come on. we both know better than that.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Wonderful op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday. Nicholas Kristof. The thrust of the article seemed to be that any kind of attack on Iran to prevent it’s use of nuclear weapons, halt the production of nuclear weapons, etc. would be a tremendous error in judgment for the U.S. and/or Israel (with U.S. support, of course).

Fair enough, you may say. But Kristof goes on to give his main reason for taking no action against Iran: It’s government is unstable. The Iranian people hate the government. And if we just leave it all alone, it will go away because, well, that government is going to get overthrown anyway. There will be a revolution, you see. And then everything will be okay and there will be no skin of our noses!

This should sound patently ridiculous, borderline insane to anyone with half a brain and a lick of common sense.

Let me see if I have this correct. I should NOT call the police on the guy stockpiling weapons across the street. I know he’s doing it. It’s not a secret. He WANTS to use the weapons to kill people. He’s as much as broadcast it to the neighborhood.

But! He PROBABLY cannot afford that house because he is not working and the Home Owner’s Association is PROBABLY going to boot his ass and he’ll PROBABLY have to move pretty soon. So. It’ll all work itself out and I won’t have to do ANYTHING!

That about right?

See. This is why I equate liberalism with brain damage. How can anyone think this way? Head trauma? Acid flashback? Too much caffeine? Too much Katie Couric? Help me out here. I must be missing something. Does this make sense to anyone?
[/quote]

Actually, it makes a fair amount of sense. Iran is not on the verge of having nuclear weapons by any means. The only people even getting near a statement like that are the same ideologues who told us Iraq was in the same position.

And what, pray tell, would attacking Iran accomplish? We can’t invade, both because we’re overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are not going well, and because an invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq times 10.

So we’re left with an air strike. Even if we take the best, best case scenario and it turns out like Osirak in 1981, our bombing drives a young and Western-oriented population into the arms of the mullahs, and probably entrenches them for the better part of a generation. And Iran goes back to work, disperses their program a bit better, digs their bunkers a bit deeper, and builds their bomb a few years later.

Not to mention you’re completely omitting the whole MAD side of the Iran equation, which seems to be the war crowd thing to do these days.

Kristof’s point is that regime change, probably the only sure way to stop an Iranian bomb, would be shattered by a U.S. attack. You may or may not agree with that proposition, but to say it’s “brain damaged” is stupid and shows either a closed mind or a slow one.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Actually, it makes a fair amount of sense. Iran is not on the verge of having nuclear weapons by any means. The only people even getting near a statement like that are the same ideologues who told us Iraq was in the same position.

And what, pray tell, would attacking Iran accomplish? We can’t invade, both because we’re overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are not going well, and because an invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq times 10.

So we’re left with an air strike. Even if we take the best, best case scenario and it turns out like Osirak in 1981, our bombing drives a young and Western-oriented population into the arms of the mullahs, and probably entrenches them for the better part of a generation. And Iran goes back to work, disperses their program a bit better, digs their bunkers a bit deeper, and builds their bomb a few years later.

Not to mention you’re completely omitting the whole MAD side of the Iran equation, which seems to be the war crowd thing to do these days.

Kristof’s point is that regime change, probably the only sure way to stop an Iranian bomb, would be shattered by a U.S. attack. You may or may not agree with that proposition, but to say it’s “brain damaged” is stupid and shows either a closed mind or a slow one.[/quote]

Good post. They seem to want war real badly but far fewer of them actually seem to be signing up lately to fight it.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
And what, pray tell, would attacking Iran accomplish? We can’t invade, both because we’re overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are not going well, and because an invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq times 10.
[/quote]

Define “over stretched”.

Define “not going well”.

Explain how Iran will be “10 times worse”.

I think you just parrot the peacenik talking points.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Wonderful op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday. Nicholas Kristof. The thrust of the article seemed to be that any kind of attack on Iran to prevent it’s use of nuclear weapons, halt the production of nuclear weapons, etc. would be a tremendous error in judgment for the U.S. and/or Israel (with U.S. support, of course).

Fair enough, you may say. But Kristof goes on to give his main reason for taking no action against Iran: It’s government is unstable. The Iranian people hate the government. And if we just leave it all alone, it will go away because, well, that government is going to get overthrown anyway. There will be a revolution, you see. And then everything will be okay and there will be no skin of our noses!

This should sound patently ridiculous, borderline insane to anyone with half a brain and a lick of common sense.

Let me see if I have this correct. I should NOT call the police on the guy stockpiling weapons across the street. I know he’s doing it. It’s not a secret. He WANTS to use the weapons to kill people. He’s as much as broadcast it to the neighborhood.

But! He PROBABLY cannot afford that house because he is not working and the Home Owner’s Association is PROBABLY going to boot his ass and he’ll PROBABLY have to move pretty soon. So. It’ll all work itself out and I won’t have to do ANYTHING!

That about right?

See. This is why I equate liberalism with brain damage. How can anyone think this way? Head trauma? Acid flashback? Too much caffeine? Too much Katie Couric? Help me out here. I must be missing something. Does this make sense to anyone?

Actually, it makes a fair amount of sense. Iran is not on the verge of having nuclear weapons by any means. The only people even getting near a statement like that are the same ideologues who told us Iraq was in the same position.

And what, pray tell, would attacking Iran accomplish? We can’t invade, both because we’re overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are not going well, and because an invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq times 10.

So we’re left with an air strike. Even if we take the best, best case scenario and it turns out like Osirak in 1981, our bombing drives a young and Western-oriented population into the arms of the mullahs, and probably entrenches them for the better part of a generation. And Iran goes back to work, disperses their program a bit better, digs their bunkers a bit deeper, and builds their bomb a few years later.

Not to mention you’re completely omitting the whole MAD side of the Iran equation, which seems to be the war crowd thing to do these days.

Kristof’s point is that regime change, probably the only sure way to stop an Iranian bomb, would be shattered by a U.S. attack. You may or may not agree with that proposition, but to say it’s “brain damaged” is stupid and shows either a closed mind or a slow one.[/quote]

GD

They are preparing roadways and hotels for the return of the 12th Imam.

They’ve signalled, in public statements, that they would sacrafice 1/2 of Iran for the destruction of Israel.

MAD is only effective if you value your own country. If the “official” position of the government is that martyrdom is the path to paradise the national self destruction would be a logical position to pursue. That’s the problem with MAD as a strategy against Iran.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:

So, yeah. I cited two morons. But, they all say the same thing. They said it before WWII. They said it before and after 9/11. They said it during the Cold War. Do nothing. It’ll be okay. History has always shown otherwise, but we keep hearing it from the brain damaged liberal asshats.

Two of the tenets of liberalism are appeasement of the enemy and doing nothing when attacked. Both of those things = brain damage.

You seem to have more than a touch of it yourself, bro.

Roosevelt did nothing? You sure about that?

He was arguably the most liberal president ever, and he was more than happy to enter World War II. In fact, there was only one vote against action after Pearl Harbor…apparently lots of liberals were on board back then.

I hate to tell you, but the Founding Fathers were all liberals. The overthrowing of the existing government in order to form a more perfect union? Dumping monarchies…Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry…these men were not conservatives.

Lincoln was the same way. By the conservative mantra nowadays, he should have stayed out of the Civil War- slavery was a business, and god forbid we touch that. Lincoln hated slavery, and the abolitionists that called loudest for the abolition of slavery were liberals from where? Boston of all places. Sorry man.

WWI? Hmmmmm…Woodrow Wilson got us into that one. Again…notorious liberal who even proposed the precursor to the UN, in his attempts to make a “League of Nations”.

Woodrow Wilson has always been easy for liberals to like. He was a reformer during the Progressive era, establishing an eight-hour workday, outlawing child labor, and busting trusts. He instituted the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve System, and created the parameters of American foreign policy that remain with us today. He also served as the great liberal link between Andrew Jackson and FDR, bringing the concept of a strong central government into the Democratic Party. Indeed, he becomes something of a father figure for 20th century liberalism.

http://www.documentaryfilms.net/Reviews/WoodrowWilsom/

I hate to say it, but even Vietnam was a liberal war. JFK sent advisors, LBJ escalated it…in between his Great Society Program, of course, which actually closed the gap between blacks and whites, rich and poor.

Well, we covered the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and even Vietnam.

I hate to tell you, but the whole idea of freeing the Iraqi people? That’s a liberal idea buddy. It’s called, “Nation building”, something your buddy Bush swore he wouldn’t do.

Man, you know, I can’t really think of a true conservative that ever started any war worth fighting. Before WWI and WWII, these guys were called “isolationists”.

What were you saying again?[/quote]

Irish

Some interesting examples you gave.

The real breakaway for the liberal establishment and the Democratic party happened in the later part of the 60’s.

At this point the liberal establishemnt essentially broke away from mainstream politics. This political revolt manifested itself in the presidential elections of 68 and 72. Both Democratic candidates were considered very liberal and were rejected by voters dealing with societal changes brought on by the 60’s. Watergate was a huge issue in 72-75 and opened the door for a Democratic resurgence in the 76 elections.

Reagan signified a big turn in the political mainstream. The Democratic party, with a liberal platform, began to lose elections, particularly national elections. The South was lost during this period. The lock on the house and senate began to weaken and in 1994 was reversed. Clintons election in 1992 was based more on personality and a great campaigner then a wholesale rejection of the politcal tide. Today, those who define themselves as liberal represent less then 19% of the voters.

I think the examples you gave were interesting because I don’t think any of those leaders, post Roosevelt, would be embraced by the Democratic party today, particularly it’s more liberal wings. Military action and support of the military is not encouraged in liberal politics and any candidate who suggest otherwise is typically marginalized before being eliminated.

Politics in general are polarized these days but that polarization, in my opinion happened as a reaction to events that began in the 60’s, particularly Vietnam.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
And what, pray tell, would attacking Iran accomplish? We can’t invade, both because we’re overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are not going well, and because an invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq times 10.

Define “over stretched”.

Define “not going well”.

Explain how Iran will be “10 times worse”.

I think you just parrot the peacenik talking points.

[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? Honestly, do you read the paper, or do you just dismiss anything that suggests we might be losing as defeatist liberal anti-Americanism, and stick to a steady diet of Fox News?

I’d define “over-stretched” as us handing over duties in most of southern Afghanistan to NATO troops, and having to rely on Dutch troops who nearly weren’t sent because of parliamentary opposition. I’d also define it by listening to a man like Barry McCaffrey, who thinks the Army will be severely damaged if not broken (in the Vietnam sense of the word) if we stay in Iraq much longer. Not saying I agree with that necessarily, but he’s obviously in a far better position to judge than I am.

I’d define not going well as a country where we’ve been fighting an insurgency for 3 years and don’t even control the fucking CAPITAL. Where it takes armored transports and attack helicopter escorts just to get from the airport to the Green Zone. That’s pretty unbelievable, leaving aside the state of the rest of the country.

You can get this from the news, or you can talk to people who are over there. I was at an engagement party for a buddy of mine two weeks ago, he’s ex-Army infantry and now working as a contractor in the Shiite south. He went in there as the biggest Bush supporter there was, told me I was a “fairweather Republican”, and now, three months later, he thinks we’ve already lost and a civil war over there is inevitable. One man’s opinion, but I’d take it over some ex-CPA talking head asshole on Fox, or the increasingly head-in-the-sand stuff you hear out of the White House.

And that’s not even talking about Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making the most attacks since the invasion, the Karzai government has virtually no authority outside Kabul, and the opium poppy (heroin) harvest is the highest ever.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
And what, pray tell, would attacking Iran accomplish? We can’t invade, both because we’re overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are not going well, and because an invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq times 10.

Define “over stretched”.

Define “not going well”.

Explain how Iran will be “10 times worse”.

I think you just parrot the peacenik talking points.

[/quote]

And as for Iran, that should be obvious. They weren’t crippled by sanctions, it’s a much bigger country, those who would support the regime are largely fanatics, i.e. suicide attacks would be the norm, and they have already shown they are very adept at this kind of warfare, as seen with their Hezbollah proteges.

Do you have any Administration talking points you want to parrot, preferably with evidence behind them?

[quote]hedo wrote:

I think the examples you gave were interesting because I don’t think any of those leaders, post Roosevelt, would be embraced by the Democratic party today, particularly it’s more liberal wings. Military action and support of the military is not encouraged in liberal politics and any candidate who suggest otherwise is typically marginalized before being eliminated.

Politics in general are polarized these days but that polarization, in my opinion happened as a reaction to events that began in the 60’s, particularly Vietnam.

[/quote]

I agree. However, people like Lincoln and Wilson and Roosevelt are modern liberals, but are the definition of what a liberal should be.

I don’t really consider Johnson a good president, and in all honesty JFK is known more for his potential than what he actually did (the Cuban Missile Crisis aside, where he did the right thing).

There is a new generation of liberals, but I think there are still some that follow in the older ways. I don’t agree with a welfare state, but then most people don’t. The problem is that so many groups identify themselves as “liberal” that to get a true definition of it is hard.

Animal rights activists are “liberal” (I don’t like them), NOW is “liberal” (don’t like them either), the anti-death penalty people are liberal (I’m on the fence about them), the anti-gun faction is liberal (I don’t like them)…you get my drift.

What makes me a democrat and “liberal” per se is how I think economics should go, what part the government can step in as far as business, the seperation of Church and State, the protection of the environment, and the defending (to the fucking death) of my civil liberties.

The Republicans are a more single minded group, which is probably why they win more elections.

I’m not a classic liberal so much as a modern liberal who isn’t a pussy. And really, that’s all the Democrats need. Another Clinton-esque candidate.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
And what, pray tell, would attacking Iran accomplish? We can’t invade, both because we’re overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are not going well, and because an invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq times 10.

Define “over stretched”.

Define “not going well”.

Explain how Iran will be “10 times worse”.

I think you just parrot the peacenik talking points.

[/quote]

conversely: rebuke his points.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I agree. However, people like Lincoln and Wilson and Roosevelt are modern liberals, but are the definition of what a liberal should be.[/quote]

I am not quibbling just to quibble, but I am always genuinely interested in why liberals name Lincoln as a hero.

Why - seriously - would a modern liberal like a warmongering hick, who was apparently dimwitted and looked like an ape, who engaged in a war of choice, was in the pocket of commercial interests (Northeastern industrialists, banks, and railroads), suspended habeas corpus and other civil liberties (including shutting down critical newspapers) as a matter of pure executive privilege, defied a Supreme Court ruling outright, supported the concept of ‘total war’, and added an additional reason as to why he was waging the war right in the middle of the war (and moving away from the original reason)…?

I am absolutely serious.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I agree. However, people like Lincoln and Wilson and Roosevelt are modern liberals, but are the definition of what a liberal should be.

I am not quibbling just to quibble, but I am always genuinely interested in why liberals name Lincoln as a hero.

Why - seriously - would a modern liberal like a warmongering hick, who was apparently dimwitted and looked like an ape, who engaged in a war of choice, was in the pocket of commercial interests (Northeastern industrialists, banks, and railroads), suspended habeas corpus and other civil liberties (including shutting down critical newspapers) as a matter of pure executive privilege, defied a Supreme Court ruling outright, supported the concept of ‘total war’, and added an additional reason as to why he was waging the war right in the middle of the war (and moving away from the original reason)…?

I am absolutely serious.[/quote]

His willingness to take on the greatest question of the age with America’s “peculiar institution”.

I’ve argued this many times before, that he knew there would be a great war over slavery, and Lincoln himself hated it.

Half of me thinks that if he really wanted to preserve the union, he would not have accepted the nomination in 1860. He knew war would ensue though.

Plus the fact that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, even though there was really no true cause to do so.

There are many things I didn’t like about him- namely the suspension of habeas corpus, the arresting of the mayor of Baltimore (and I think half the city council),etc.

However, he was at the point where the entire country was about to fall apart because of the practice of enslaving other people. To me, the benefits outweigh the negatives on that.

It is funny how one great act can balance many smaller bad ones…but I can’t look at it any differently.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:

I think the examples you gave were interesting because I don’t think any of those leaders, post Roosevelt, would be embraced by the Democratic party today, particularly it’s more liberal wings. Military action and support of the military is not encouraged in liberal politics and any candidate who suggest otherwise is typically marginalized before being eliminated.

Politics in general are polarized these days but that polarization, in my opinion happened as a reaction to events that began in the 60’s, particularly Vietnam.

I agree. However, people like Lincoln and Wilson and Roosevelt are modern liberals, but are the definition of what a liberal should be.

I don’t really consider Johnson a good president, and in all honesty JFK is known more for his potential than what he actually did (the Cuban Missile Crisis aside, where he did the right thing).

There is a new generation of liberals, but I think there are still some that follow in the older ways. I don’t agree with a welfare state, but then most people don’t. The problem is that so many groups identify themselves as “liberal” that to get a true definition of it is hard.

Animal rights activists are “liberal” (I don’t like them), NOW is “liberal” (don’t like them either), the anti-death penalty people are liberal (I’m on the fence about them), the anti-gun faction is liberal (I don’t like them)…you get my drift.

What makes me a democrat and “liberal” per se is how I think economics should go, what part the government can step in as far as business, the seperation of Church and State, the protection of the environment, and the defending (to the fucking death) of my civil liberties.

The Republicans are a more single minded group, which is probably why they win more elections.

I’m not a classic liberal so much as a modern liberal who isn’t a pussy. And really, that’s all the Democrats need. Another Clinton-esque candidate.[/quote]

A “neo-liberal”?