OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[briansd1]

BTW, Allan, please don’t think that my previous comments about the military mean that I’m against the military.

My comments were just meant to point out the contradictions in the Republican’s unwavering support of the military.

I actually believe that the military is a great equalizer. It’s a huge jobs program for those who don’t have opportunities in the private sector. Those workers only need to put time and effort and discipline. In return, the military will build their muscles and brains.

In that way, the military is a great social experiment where jobs, health care, pensions, childcare, counseling, and housing are available to all.

The military is also a great “integrator” of people of all races. I see a lot of soldiers with friends of all races; and I also see many inter-racial couples in the military. Many Black soldiers have White girlfriends and vice-versa. When soldiers are stationed overseas, many of them bring back foreign brides.

Of course, we all know that the military was integrated before the country was.

I support the military. But I don’t support war.

The “real” Americans who think that the military is preserving their “way of life” better think again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Allan, I can discern the differences very well. And I think that you, Allan, are fairly honest in your views.

I was making references to conservative Republicans in general. They are not intellectually honest and only a big-gun, an-eye-for-an-eye approach works with them. To them, trying to debate rationally only indicates that you’re a wuss.

The base of the Republican party is a joke. They are a bunch of ranting, loud, vulgar, ignorant and overweight working-class thugs. They wear oversized outfits not different than the hoodlums of the inner city.

They hardly represent the conservative values of impeccable Christian upbringing and decorum.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the way they rant and gesture, sound like low-class union organizers, not conservative intellectuals.[/quote]

Brian: I think the criticism cuts both ways. A good example would be Katie Couric’s pronouncement on global warming that the “science is settled”. No, it isn’t and several very prominent scientists have agitated for more debate on the subject.

However, it is now considered nearly heresy to question Al Gore or those pushing the global warming agenda and many stay silent out of fear.

Doesn’t this sort of thing constitute exactly the same sort of close minded thinking you were railing against the Republicans for?

When you declare all debate over on a subject and then blackball and blacklist those that don’t agree with you or think as you do, then you are guilty of the same crimes of repression and oppression that you accuse your opponents of.

The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? I think we both know the answer and now we’re hewing perilously close to propaganda (and that accusation fits both sides, too), in that the population at large is only being fed one side of the story or no sides of the story.

The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. The problems the Dems are now experiencing, including their utter bewilderment at the reaction of the American people to their various policies, is simply a function of misreading the meaning of the election and interpreting it as a sweeping mandate, which it never was.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Allan, I can discern the differences very well. And I think that you, Allan, are fairly honest in your views.

I was making references to conservative Republicans in general. They are not intellectually honest and only a big-gun, an-eye-for-an-eye approach works with them. To them, trying to debate rationally only indicates that you’re a wuss.

The base of the Republican party is a joke. They are a bunch of ranting, loud, vulgar, ignorant and overweight working-class thugs. They wear oversized outfits not different than the hoodlums of the inner city.

They hardly represent the conservative values of impeccable Christian upbringing and decorum.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the way they rant and gesture, sound like low-class union organizers, not conservative intellectuals.[/quote]

Brian: I think the criticism cuts both ways. A good example would be Katie Couric’s pronouncement on global warming that the “science is settled”. No, it isn’t and several very prominent scientists have agitated for more debate on the subject.

However, it is now considered nearly heresy to question Al Gore or those pushing the global warming agenda and many stay silent out of fear.

Doesn’t this sort of thing constitute exactly the same sort of close minded thinking you were railing against the Republicans for?

When you declare all debate over on a subject and then blackball and blacklist those that don’t agree with you or think as you do, then you are guilty of the same crimes of repression and oppression that you accuse your opponents of.

The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? I think we both know the answer and now we’re hewing perilously close to propaganda (and that accusation fits both sides, too), in that the population at large is only being fed one side of the story or no sides of the story.

The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. The problems the Dems are now experiencing, including their utter bewilderment at the reaction of the American people to their various policies, is simply a function of misreading the meaning of the election and interpreting it as a sweeping mandate, which it never was.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Allan, I can discern the differences very well. And I think that you, Allan, are fairly honest in your views.

I was making references to conservative Republicans in general. They are not intellectually honest and only a big-gun, an-eye-for-an-eye approach works with them. To them, trying to debate rationally only indicates that you’re a wuss.

The base of the Republican party is a joke. They are a bunch of ranting, loud, vulgar, ignorant and overweight working-class thugs. They wear oversized outfits not different than the hoodlums of the inner city.

They hardly represent the conservative values of impeccable Christian upbringing and decorum.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the way they rant and gesture, sound like low-class union organizers, not conservative intellectuals.[/quote]

Brian: I think the criticism cuts both ways. A good example would be Katie Couric’s pronouncement on global warming that the “science is settled”. No, it isn’t and several very prominent scientists have agitated for more debate on the subject.

However, it is now considered nearly heresy to question Al Gore or those pushing the global warming agenda and many stay silent out of fear.

Doesn’t this sort of thing constitute exactly the same sort of close minded thinking you were railing against the Republicans for?

When you declare all debate over on a subject and then blackball and blacklist those that don’t agree with you or think as you do, then you are guilty of the same crimes of repression and oppression that you accuse your opponents of.

The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? I think we both know the answer and now we’re hewing perilously close to propaganda (and that accusation fits both sides, too), in that the population at large is only being fed one side of the story or no sides of the story.

The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. The problems the Dems are now experiencing, including their utter bewilderment at the reaction of the American people to their various policies, is simply a function of misreading the meaning of the election and interpreting it as a sweeping mandate, which it never was.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Allan, I can discern the differences very well. And I think that you, Allan, are fairly honest in your views.

I was making references to conservative Republicans in general. They are not intellectually honest and only a big-gun, an-eye-for-an-eye approach works with them. To them, trying to debate rationally only indicates that you’re a wuss.

The base of the Republican party is a joke. They are a bunch of ranting, loud, vulgar, ignorant and overweight working-class thugs. They wear oversized outfits not different than the hoodlums of the inner city.

They hardly represent the conservative values of impeccable Christian upbringing and decorum.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the way they rant and gesture, sound like low-class union organizers, not conservative intellectuals.[/quote]

Brian: I think the criticism cuts both ways. A good example would be Katie Couric’s pronouncement on global warming that the “science is settled”. No, it isn’t and several very prominent scientists have agitated for more debate on the subject.

However, it is now considered nearly heresy to question Al Gore or those pushing the global warming agenda and many stay silent out of fear.

Doesn’t this sort of thing constitute exactly the same sort of close minded thinking you were railing against the Republicans for?

When you declare all debate over on a subject and then blackball and blacklist those that don’t agree with you or think as you do, then you are guilty of the same crimes of repression and oppression that you accuse your opponents of.

The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? I think we both know the answer and now we’re hewing perilously close to propaganda (and that accusation fits both sides, too), in that the population at large is only being fed one side of the story or no sides of the story.

The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. The problems the Dems are now experiencing, including their utter bewilderment at the reaction of the American people to their various policies, is simply a function of misreading the meaning of the election and interpreting it as a sweeping mandate, which it never was.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Allan, I can discern the differences very well. And I think that you, Allan, are fairly honest in your views.

I was making references to conservative Republicans in general. They are not intellectually honest and only a big-gun, an-eye-for-an-eye approach works with them. To them, trying to debate rationally only indicates that you’re a wuss.

The base of the Republican party is a joke. They are a bunch of ranting, loud, vulgar, ignorant and overweight working-class thugs. They wear oversized outfits not different than the hoodlums of the inner city.

They hardly represent the conservative values of impeccable Christian upbringing and decorum.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the way they rant and gesture, sound like low-class union organizers, not conservative intellectuals.[/quote]

Brian: I think the criticism cuts both ways. A good example would be Katie Couric’s pronouncement on global warming that the “science is settled”. No, it isn’t and several very prominent scientists have agitated for more debate on the subject.

However, it is now considered nearly heresy to question Al Gore or those pushing the global warming agenda and many stay silent out of fear.

Doesn’t this sort of thing constitute exactly the same sort of close minded thinking you were railing against the Republicans for?

When you declare all debate over on a subject and then blackball and blacklist those that don’t agree with you or think as you do, then you are guilty of the same crimes of repression and oppression that you accuse your opponents of.

The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? I think we both know the answer and now we’re hewing perilously close to propaganda (and that accusation fits both sides, too), in that the population at large is only being fed one side of the story or no sides of the story.

The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. The problems the Dems are now experiencing, including their utter bewilderment at the reaction of the American people to their various policies, is simply a function of misreading the meaning of the election and interpreting it as a sweeping mandate, which it never was.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? [/quote]

To me, the Acorn controversy is a non-story. It was a gotcha operation from a right-wing group.

I hope that somebody will conduct a similar hidden-camera stunt on a right-wing group as payback. Maybe film and out Republican politicians for controversial behavior and remarks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. [/quote]

Well, I think that those wedge tactics started back in the 1990s during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Before that, the Democrats were pretty weak and lame.

During Reagan and Bush Sr, the Republicans thought that they had a permanent lock on the presidency and they were bewildered when Clinton (then an unknown) won. In 12 years, Republicans grew complacent and confident that Democrats were Carter-era weaklings.

With the victory of Bill Clinton, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” started to take shape.

The right got even more pissed when Clinton won reelection and beat the sex scandal.

The Democrats eventually started to understand that you can only beat the bully by using the weapons that he understands.

After 9/11 Dubya had strong popular support. But as the Iraq War dragged on, the Democrats started to beat back.

I think that, by nature, right leaning folks are tough and they see things in terms of black and white. So unless you speak the language they understand, they think that you’re a wuss.

Progressive intellectuals tend to be more measured.

Allan, You are right when you say that liberals are a product of a “co-opted educational system” which makes them weak (I agree that schools need to be a lot tougher on kids).

I’m glad to finally see progressives becoming stronger in their approaches. And as card-carrying conservative, you would understand that if you want to squash your opponent you need to use overwhelming force (hence the hawkish national defense stance from the right). Don’t give and inch else they’ll take a mile.

I actually welcome the stronger partisanship. I see that as push back from progressives against oppression. May the best win.

Allan, as a coach, and a soldier I’m sure you understand that one has to build character and become strong when facing adversity. It’s never good to walk away from a challenge.

If my son were bullied in school, it’d teach him to fight back. It’s never good for self-esteem to walk away.

The wedge tactics work. You and I here see through them. But the general public just listens to headlines. They are too busy with their work and families to delve into the details.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? [/quote]

To me, the Acorn controversy is a non-story. It was a gotcha operation from a right-wing group.

I hope that somebody will conduct a similar hidden-camera stunt on a right-wing group as payback. Maybe film and out Republican politicians for controversial behavior and remarks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. [/quote]

Well, I think that those wedge tactics started back in the 1990s during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Before that, the Democrats were pretty weak and lame.

During Reagan and Bush Sr, the Republicans thought that they had a permanent lock on the presidency and they were bewildered when Clinton (then an unknown) won. In 12 years, Republicans grew complacent and confident that Democrats were Carter-era weaklings.

With the victory of Bill Clinton, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” started to take shape.

The right got even more pissed when Clinton won reelection and beat the sex scandal.

The Democrats eventually started to understand that you can only beat the bully by using the weapons that he understands.

After 9/11 Dubya had strong popular support. But as the Iraq War dragged on, the Democrats started to beat back.

I think that, by nature, right leaning folks are tough and they see things in terms of black and white. So unless you speak the language they understand, they think that you’re a wuss.

Progressive intellectuals tend to be more measured.

Allan, You are right when you say that liberals are a product of a “co-opted educational system” which makes them weak (I agree that schools need to be a lot tougher on kids).

I’m glad to finally see progressives becoming stronger in their approaches. And as card-carrying conservative, you would understand that if you want to squash your opponent you need to use overwhelming force (hence the hawkish national defense stance from the right). Don’t give and inch else they’ll take a mile.

I actually welcome the stronger partisanship. I see that as push back from progressives against oppression. May the best win.

Allan, as a coach, and a soldier I’m sure you understand that one has to build character and become strong when facing adversity. It’s never good to walk away from a challenge.

If my son were bullied in school, it’d teach him to fight back. It’s never good for self-esteem to walk away.

The wedge tactics work. You and I here see through them. But the general public just listens to headlines. They are too busy with their work and families to delve into the details.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? [/quote]

To me, the Acorn controversy is a non-story. It was a gotcha operation from a right-wing group.

I hope that somebody will conduct a similar hidden-camera stunt on a right-wing group as payback. Maybe film and out Republican politicians for controversial behavior and remarks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. [/quote]

Well, I think that those wedge tactics started back in the 1990s during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Before that, the Democrats were pretty weak and lame.

During Reagan and Bush Sr, the Republicans thought that they had a permanent lock on the presidency and they were bewildered when Clinton (then an unknown) won. In 12 years, Republicans grew complacent and confident that Democrats were Carter-era weaklings.

With the victory of Bill Clinton, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” started to take shape.

The right got even more pissed when Clinton won reelection and beat the sex scandal.

The Democrats eventually started to understand that you can only beat the bully by using the weapons that he understands.

After 9/11 Dubya had strong popular support. But as the Iraq War dragged on, the Democrats started to beat back.

I think that, by nature, right leaning folks are tough and they see things in terms of black and white. So unless you speak the language they understand, they think that you’re a wuss.

Progressive intellectuals tend to be more measured.

Allan, You are right when you say that liberals are a product of a “co-opted educational system” which makes them weak (I agree that schools need to be a lot tougher on kids).

I’m glad to finally see progressives becoming stronger in their approaches. And as card-carrying conservative, you would understand that if you want to squash your opponent you need to use overwhelming force (hence the hawkish national defense stance from the right). Don’t give and inch else they’ll take a mile.

I actually welcome the stronger partisanship. I see that as push back from progressives against oppression. May the best win.

Allan, as a coach, and a soldier I’m sure you understand that one has to build character and become strong when facing adversity. It’s never good to walk away from a challenge.

If my son were bullied in school, it’d teach him to fight back. It’s never good for self-esteem to walk away.

The wedge tactics work. You and I here see through them. But the general public just listens to headlines. They are too busy with their work and families to delve into the details.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? [/quote]

To me, the Acorn controversy is a non-story. It was a gotcha operation from a right-wing group.

I hope that somebody will conduct a similar hidden-camera stunt on a right-wing group as payback. Maybe film and out Republican politicians for controversial behavior and remarks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. [/quote]

Well, I think that those wedge tactics started back in the 1990s during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Before that, the Democrats were pretty weak and lame.

During Reagan and Bush Sr, the Republicans thought that they had a permanent lock on the presidency and they were bewildered when Clinton (then an unknown) won. In 12 years, Republicans grew complacent and confident that Democrats were Carter-era weaklings.

With the victory of Bill Clinton, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” started to take shape.

The right got even more pissed when Clinton won reelection and beat the sex scandal.

The Democrats eventually started to understand that you can only beat the bully by using the weapons that he understands.

After 9/11 Dubya had strong popular support. But as the Iraq War dragged on, the Democrats started to beat back.

I think that, by nature, right leaning folks are tough and they see things in terms of black and white. So unless you speak the language they understand, they think that you’re a wuss.

Progressive intellectuals tend to be more measured.

Allan, You are right when you say that liberals are a product of a “co-opted educational system” which makes them weak (I agree that schools need to be a lot tougher on kids).

I’m glad to finally see progressives becoming stronger in their approaches. And as card-carrying conservative, you would understand that if you want to squash your opponent you need to use overwhelming force (hence the hawkish national defense stance from the right). Don’t give and inch else they’ll take a mile.

I actually welcome the stronger partisanship. I see that as push back from progressives against oppression. May the best win.

Allan, as a coach, and a soldier I’m sure you understand that one has to build character and become strong when facing adversity. It’s never good to walk away from a challenge.

If my son were bullied in school, it’d teach him to fight back. It’s never good for self-esteem to walk away.

The wedge tactics work. You and I here see through them. But the general public just listens to headlines. They are too busy with their work and families to delve into the details.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The ACORN story is another good example. Fox News was responsible for breaking this story and airing this to the larger public and other news agencies, including CBS and ABC, would not and did not. Charlie Gibson indicated that he was unaware of the story, but felt it was best left to “cable”. It was a real story, regardless of Gibson’s feelings, and ABC and CBS had a journalistic obligation to air it. So, why didn’t they? [/quote]

To me, the Acorn controversy is a non-story. It was a gotcha operation from a right-wing group.

I hope that somebody will conduct a similar hidden-camera stunt on a right-wing group as payback. Maybe film and out Republican politicians for controversial behavior and remarks.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The narrative or dialogue is being shaped by two diametrically opposed belief systems, which explains the polarization and Balkanization of America, and why cunning political operatives and operators, such as Karl Rove, Jim Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, etc have been so effective in achieving their goals.

If you wonder why wedge issues are so effective, you need look no further than the (air) time and money spent to push them.

You cannot lambast the Republicans without recognizing that the same tactics are being used by the Democrats as well. [/quote]

Well, I think that those wedge tactics started back in the 1990s during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Before that, the Democrats were pretty weak and lame.

During Reagan and Bush Sr, the Republicans thought that they had a permanent lock on the presidency and they were bewildered when Clinton (then an unknown) won. In 12 years, Republicans grew complacent and confident that Democrats were Carter-era weaklings.

With the victory of Bill Clinton, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” started to take shape.

The right got even more pissed when Clinton won reelection and beat the sex scandal.

The Democrats eventually started to understand that you can only beat the bully by using the weapons that he understands.

After 9/11 Dubya had strong popular support. But as the Iraq War dragged on, the Democrats started to beat back.

I think that, by nature, right leaning folks are tough and they see things in terms of black and white. So unless you speak the language they understand, they think that you’re a wuss.

Progressive intellectuals tend to be more measured.

Allan, You are right when you say that liberals are a product of a “co-opted educational system” which makes them weak (I agree that schools need to be a lot tougher on kids).

I’m glad to finally see progressives becoming stronger in their approaches. And as card-carrying conservative, you would understand that if you want to squash your opponent you need to use overwhelming force (hence the hawkish national defense stance from the right). Don’t give and inch else they’ll take a mile.

I actually welcome the stronger partisanship. I see that as push back from progressives against oppression. May the best win.

Allan, as a coach, and a soldier I’m sure you understand that one has to build character and become strong when facing adversity. It’s never good to walk away from a challenge.

If my son were bullied in school, it’d teach him to fight back. It’s never good for self-esteem to walk away.

The wedge tactics work. You and I here see through them. But the general public just listens to headlines. They are too busy with their work and families to delve into the details.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Containment of Iraq worked well for several decades. Suddenly we had to invade because “it’s different this time.”

Despite our traditions of Civil Liberties Bush needed the Patriot Act because “it’s different this time.”
[/quote]

Wait a minute, you’re accusing conservatives of rigidity and then you’re complaining when they do respond? The problem with your logic is that you fail to mention that the death of almost 3000 of our citizens on our home soil was enough of a reason for us to consider taking the fight to our enemies and for creating new measures to protect the American populace.

[quote=briansd1]The Christian religious nutcases believed that world was flat for hundreds of years although the Greeks knew otherwise. It sure took them a long time to be convinced otherwise.

Still today certain conservative elements don’t believe in evolution. Should we wait for another couple hundred years for the proof?[/quote]

Hmmmmm….. Interesting statement you made. I had to look it up because I remembered reading it in a book awhile back….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

“David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”[3]”

Wow. Even I could not believe how totally wrong you were.

By the way, you should also know that the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, has accepted evolution and teaches it. It did take a neutral view of it in 1950 and accepted it later.

Maybe you should reconsider some of your prejudices towards christians. Just a thought. It seems your prejudices are so medieval.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Containment of Iraq worked well for several decades. Suddenly we had to invade because “it’s different this time.”

Despite our traditions of Civil Liberties Bush needed the Patriot Act because “it’s different this time.”
[/quote]

Wait a minute, you’re accusing conservatives of rigidity and then you’re complaining when they do respond? The problem with your logic is that you fail to mention that the death of almost 3000 of our citizens on our home soil was enough of a reason for us to consider taking the fight to our enemies and for creating new measures to protect the American populace.

[quote=briansd1]The Christian religious nutcases believed that world was flat for hundreds of years although the Greeks knew otherwise. It sure took them a long time to be convinced otherwise.

Still today certain conservative elements don’t believe in evolution. Should we wait for another couple hundred years for the proof?[/quote]

Hmmmmm….. Interesting statement you made. I had to look it up because I remembered reading it in a book awhile back….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

“David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”[3]”

Wow. Even I could not believe how totally wrong you were.

By the way, you should also know that the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, has accepted evolution and teaches it. It did take a neutral view of it in 1950 and accepted it later.

Maybe you should reconsider some of your prejudices towards christians. Just a thought. It seems your prejudices are so medieval.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Containment of Iraq worked well for several decades. Suddenly we had to invade because “it’s different this time.”

Despite our traditions of Civil Liberties Bush needed the Patriot Act because “it’s different this time.”
[/quote]

Wait a minute, you’re accusing conservatives of rigidity and then you’re complaining when they do respond? The problem with your logic is that you fail to mention that the death of almost 3000 of our citizens on our home soil was enough of a reason for us to consider taking the fight to our enemies and for creating new measures to protect the American populace.

[quote=briansd1]The Christian religious nutcases believed that world was flat for hundreds of years although the Greeks knew otherwise. It sure took them a long time to be convinced otherwise.

Still today certain conservative elements don’t believe in evolution. Should we wait for another couple hundred years for the proof?[/quote]

Hmmmmm….. Interesting statement you made. I had to look it up because I remembered reading it in a book awhile back….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

“David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”[3]”

Wow. Even I could not believe how totally wrong you were.

By the way, you should also know that the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, has accepted evolution and teaches it. It did take a neutral view of it in 1950 and accepted it later.

Maybe you should reconsider some of your prejudices towards christians. Just a thought. It seems your prejudices are so medieval.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]
Containment of Iraq worked well for several decades. Suddenly we had to invade because “it’s different this time.”

Despite our traditions of Civil Liberties Bush needed the Patriot Act because “it’s different this time.”
[/quote]

Wait a minute, you’re accusing conservatives of rigidity and then you’re complaining when they do respond? The problem with your logic is that you fail to mention that the death of almost 3000 of our citizens on our home soil was enough of a reason for us to consider taking the fight to our enemies and for creating new measures to protect the American populace.

[quote=briansd1]The Christian religious nutcases believed that world was flat for hundreds of years although the Greeks knew otherwise. It sure took them a long time to be convinced otherwise.

Still today certain conservative elements don’t believe in evolution. Should we wait for another couple hundred years for the proof?[/quote]

Hmmmmm….. Interesting statement you made. I had to look it up because I remembered reading it in a book awhile back….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

“David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”[3]”

Wow. Even I could not believe how totally wrong you were.

By the way, you should also know that the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, has accepted evolution and teaches it. It did take a neutral view of it in 1950 and accepted it later.

Maybe you should reconsider some of your prejudices towards christians. Just a thought. It seems your prejudices are so medieval.

[Author]

Posts