If you’ll remember, the administration seemingly out of the blue started hyping up Iraq in 2002. They always insinuated a connection to 9/11 but never had anything concrete to it. For the last six to nine months, as the Iraq war has worsened, the right has been focused on hyping the “threat” of Iran and Syria.
Why, pray tell, should we believe a word they say?
Shorter Iran and Syria: “booga, booga, booga!”
while Saudi Arabia and Yemen laugh softly behind their hands
At least you’re consistent, Oliver. You haven’t believed the administration (or in it) since they “stole the election” in 2000.
Well, you have to admit that’s not the most solid foundation for a Government that hopes to be trustworthy.
I think the Bushies should start secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos, just to be sure.
No, I believed them when they said Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 because the freaking evidence backed them up. Why should I have confidence in the consistently wrong?
Sorry, Oliver, you believed them once. My mistake.
Yes, Frank, the administration hasn’t had a good record on telling the truth so believing them or believing in them is your mistake.
Einstein said, “There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
I prefer the latter to the former. Perhaps as you make that difficult transition from adolescence (liberalism) to to adulthood (conservatism) you’ll change your mind.
Apparently America chose adolescence over old and dumb this November and Frank can’t reconcile.
Perhaps as you make that difficult transition from adolescence (liberalism) to to adulthood (conservatism) you’ll change your mind.
Next week on Condescension Theatre, we’ll bring you the latest episode in “Obviously It’s Too Difficult For You to Understand.”
wtf??? No, really frank, wtf?
What does that quote from Albert have to do with anything, much less conservatism vs liberalism?
Oliver, you may be right, but I don’t know why you insist I’m having difficulty with it.
Believe me, it is easier than 4 years of Carter, and 8 years of Clinton, and I survived that.
Quaker (1) it’s not condescension — it’s my interpretation of “Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is a socialist after he is 30 has no head.”
Quaker (2) It means it is easier to believe than it is not to believe — granted, it was not precisely to the point, but it was the best I could in a hurry.
How about: “The same principles which at first view lead to skepticism, pursued to a certain point, bring men back to common sense.”
George Berkeley
Better?
Let’s call it what it is: SCAPEGOATING. Why is Iraq so fucked up? Iran and Syria! It isn’t Bush’s fault that he looted the country, allowed sectarian violence fester, put idiots in charge of reconstruction, etc etc etc. No! Iran and Syria are the problem.
It’s all worse than that, now that we have taken Iranians hostage from their embassy in Iraq. That’s a direct act of war and is considered an attack on Iranian sovereign territory. I guess we thought that since they did it to us in the 70’s, we can do it now.
Iran is a thorn for many reasons, and while scapegoating them for Iraq and Hezbollah is a convenient pr device, there are many other underlying reasons for the cons to hate them.
1.)The Iran hostage crisis of the 70’s. No way any self respecting hard right war monger is going to take that bitch slap and shake it off.
2.)Iran is selling oil to China, our biggest potential rival, both militarily and economically (putting aside how much of our debt/manufacturing is tied up with them). So again, it’s about the oil.
3.)Iran is planning a bourse, which in a nutshell means they plan to sell oil to the open market, but are basing its value on the Euro and not the dollar. If that happens, a major peg propping up the U.S. economy will be knocked out.
4.)Iran, while not having any real nuke capability today, will probably develop the capability somewhere in the next 5-10 years or so. Whatever the time frame, the fact that Israel might lose such a huge strategic advatage is obviously very threatening to the neocons. It’s not us they are afraid Iran will nuke (no serious long range arsenal and no meaningful supply of warheads for a loooong time), or anyone else, really. It’s the idea that the balance of strategic power in the region will shift away from Israel and U.S. interests. Iran ain’t stupid and they can see how we handled (or failed to handle) North Korea. Obviously they know we aren’t serious about controlling proliferation, considering we keep pumping up India’s arsenal and look the other way while Pakistan sells tech on the black market and harbors terrorists along its border. Plus, with Bush trashing every nuclear agreement he can find, why should Iran not worry that without a deterrent they won’t be next? Oops, they are!
That’s not how it goes, fd.
The correct quote is:
Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
–Francois Guizot
Times like this I wish I could summon the spirit of Anuerin Bevan.
Thanks, Quaker, for the distinction without a difference. It just so happens that I have seen that quote in the form I used it as being used by Alf Landon. The fact that it had it’s origin elsewhere does absolutely nothing to reduce its validity.
Yes, NG, the lessons to be learned from the life of an obscure Welsh politician would surely be helpful in this conversation.
Maybe you could tell us about Alfred the Great, or King Canute.
Obscure my arse. You’re discussing socialism as being a bedwetter’s ideology. Nye used to eat three of you for breakfast, dickwad.
NG: Mr. Bevan is obscure here.
And, for the record, in America, “dickwad” is obscene.
So, as I commented before, for liberals, the leap from something resembling intelligence to obscenity is so blindingly fast as to be legendary.
And I would never say bad things about a fellow Welshman — I am one – quarter Welsh.
When I compared liberals to adolescents, I didn’t mean infants or children (”bedwetters”); I meant adolescents who think they are discovering the worlds’ problems afresh, while at the same time lacking an adult’s perspective on those same problems.
Easy, when you know what you’re talking about, isn’t it?
Bill L., I’m curious: How is someone usually classified by the Left as an idiot, capable of such a sweeping conspiracy?
Of course, just how realistic it all is, and to what end, are questions for another day.
midderpidge: It is not an embassy, but pretending it is makes for an exciting pretense of historical irony, doesn’t it?
Lessee: They took hostages from our Embassy; we took hostages from their Embassy.
Whee!
Do you think the Iranian President will wander around aimlessly in the Iranian version of the Rose Garden doing little or nothing for 444 days?
I guess we can figure the Iranians won’t be in the Olympics next time.
Hehe
For the record, Iranian and Syrian involvement in the war in Iraq has been neither sudden nor secret.
If anything is new, it is the long overdue plan to do something about it.
excuse me, midderpidge, it was Bill L. who made that incorrect statement about the Iranian “embassy which is not an embassy.”
I meant adolescents who think they are discovering the worlds’ problems afresh, while at the same time lacking an adult’s perspective on those same problems.
But not in a condescending way, mind you.
Frank, I gotta hand it to you. There’s no other person on here that so consistently makes me re-read their posts so that I can be sure that I didn’t imagine the crazy.
Congratulations, you win the prize of being the most pompous, narcissistic, and deluded individual here.
“Dickwad”, an obscene term? Perhaps, but you have yet to demonstrate that it’s not an apt descriptor.
I don’t have the name mambochicken, either, but I don’t bother you about it.
I would venture to say it’s impossible for me to be either narcissistic or pompous amidst an avalanche of mindless insults — but, hey, what do I know?
You made me do it again! You’re amazing!
Quaker: I don’t mean that liberals are immature, although I’m sure that some are.
Seriously, liberals share many qualities with adolescents:
distrust and suspicion towards authority
they are “fairness freaks” (the rich should pay more taxes, CEO’s make too much money), “this, that and the other thing is just not fair — like health care, everyone should have it free, whether they want it or need, regardless of the consequences.
they have a skewed sense of rationality — why can’t we curse and swear all over TV and the movies? What’s wrong with ______? Why can’t we _________?
Get what I’m driving at?
Conservatives, on the other hand, are fuddy – duddies, spoilsports and party poopers; always saying, “Hold it a minute, let’s think about this ”
They take all the fun out of everything!
And again!
By the way, the answer to your previous question is, “Not much.”
Ooooh, Mambochicken! Devastating! But I don’t think Don Rickles has anything to worry about.
Liberals are not necessarily distrustful of authority figures. Maybe liberals just choose to not give their trust blindly, without having the figure of authority earn it. It certainly seems to me, and 70% of the American public, that Bush and the rest of the Republicans have done nothing to earn our trust.
“Fairness freaks”? You mean, actually thinking that there’s room for justice in this world? Thinking that maybe poor people deserve medical care? Thinking that the inherent imbalances outside of a person’s control (e.g., their race, their upbringing, their gender) maybe could be accounted and adjusted for? Yeah, that definitely makes us “freaks.”
Perhaps conservatives have the skewed sense of morality, caring more about the sexual behavior of consenting adults behind closed doors, or of “dirty language,” than about things like sending people to kill and die in a foriegn land for no reason? (This doesn’t apply to all conservatives, but seems more true for them as a group than for us “bleeding heart” liberals).
And for you to brand conservativism as the ideology of “thinking”, of rationality, is truly comedy at its finest.
Do you think before you type this nonsense up, or do the words just flow from your fingertips in some sort of reflexive, subconcious way?
BTW, mambochicken, if you keep calling me crazy, I’m liable to start believing that you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
Oh, wait…
I know “dickwad”’s obscene. I didn’t mean it as a compliment.
Oh-kay, Frank, here’s what i think.
Seriously, I don’t understand why you come in here and poke at the bears with a stick if you can’t deal with the chilly reception you get as a result.
Nothing seems to have changed with you, man. You demand attention and then get all bent and feel hurt when you get it.
Jack up the zoloft, buddy. It really helps.
Duros, that link brightened my day. Thank you.
Glad I could help.
Duros — you, as usual, are mistaken. I didn’t say I couldn’t deal with it. I said I shouldn’t have to deal with it.
If I couldn’t deal with it I would just go away and not come back.
And, by the way, telling me to “jack up the zoloft”, and calling me buddy are not winning any points for you.
I don’t know why you pass yourself as some kind of peacemaker when you’re just as obnoxious as your fellow schmendricks. [as in that oh - so - humorous swf file]
Here’s a link for you, and N G and R M
Einstein said, “There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
I prefer the latter to the former. Perhaps as you make that difficult transition from adolescence (liberalism) to to adulthood (conservatism) you’ll change your mind.
A few points:
1. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
2. This is why I called you a crochity old man. It’s because you hate youth.
3. How is believing in magic anything BUT childish?
4. For the point of the ACTUAL topic at hand, have you ever heard of “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’”?
Yes, NG, the lessons to be learned from the life of an obscure Welsh politician would surely be helpful in this conversation.
Maybe you could tell us about Alfred the Great, or King Canute.
Ok, here’s one
I’d rather be an intellectual elitest, than a stupid prick.
-Zython
And Frankie, if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Oh, Frank, Frank, Frank.
Can’t you see I’m just playing with you? I honestly like reading your posts and diatribes, but you just get so worked up when people disagree with you, very often quite reasonably and calmly. It’s just that after 30 or 40 posts when you refuse to see the validity of other people’s points that the discussion turns south towards the schoolyard.
As far as that swf file is concerned, I just thought it was funny. I thought you might too. And feel free to copy and keep it and use it on me sometime.
We can agree to disagree. I still wouldn’t mind having a beer with everybody here, and that includes you, Frank.
It’s quite simple: You seem to think that repeating the same opinion, or inaccurate “fact” will wear me down like water on marble.
Because there are 8 people saying the same thing 5 different ways, does not mean they are presenting 40 different ideas.
It is very important to realize the difference between an opinion and a fact. No matter how many facts you have to support an opinion, you still end up with a well – supported opinion.
If the point were to see which opinion is better supported, or supported at all, then we could declare some kind of “winner.”
But if I have an opinion, “A” supported by facts b,c and d; why should I change my opinion to “E”, because it is supported by f, g and h?
I think that is why these “discussions” degenerate into flamefests. You said it yourself: “It’s just that after 30 or 40 posts when you refuse to see the validity of other people’s points that the discussion turns south towards the schoolyard.”
And what about when, after 10 posts of mine, and 60 posts by 6 different people, all saying the same thing in different ways, no one sees “the validity of my points”?
What should I do?
The facile answer is, “You’re a conservative, so you’re never right — you’re here for our amusement ["I'm glad you're back -- you make it funny around her"].
But that’s not a legitimate objection.
Neither is “You don’t belong here — this is a liberal blog.”
I have certainly read enough conservative blogs. The liberals on those threads are truly trolls — they’ll say any damned thing to get a rise out of somebody.
{I certainly don’t believe that Jay, Dugger, Dr Pedro (who I suspect has left here for good), or myself ever did that.}
Whatever they are told, they are never told “they don’t belong.”
I hate to tell you this, but liberals believe they are right, to a degree nowhere near that of the certainty of conservatives.
It is an operating principle of conservativism that politics is subjective — not so of liberalism.
So, that’s all I have.
BTW, he has my Power of Attorney.
It is an operating principle of conservativism that politics is subjective — not so of liberalism.
That, of course, is your subjective opinion.
I also respectfully disagree. I believe all politics is subjective. For that matter, all ideology is subjective.
What should I do?
My honest answer is try not to take it so much to heart, Frank. I’ve re-read a bunch of your posts. try not to make it about you.
Okay?
I believe all politics is subjective. For that matter, all ideology is subjective.
I said it was a general operating principle in liberalism, not a unanimously held belief by each and every liberal.
For example, the more strongly liberals hold their beliefs, the more likely they are to author blogs, or comment on blogs.
Those who don’t care all that much, well, they don’t care all that much.