Letters to the Editor
-
Karen
No worries, Kitt!
Location: TBD
-- Karen M
I didn't think you were serious really. Location:TBD? What does the TBD stand for?
-
@Svensker
But it sounded to me like a number of peoples, including yuz, were claiming that all Repubs from all time wuz bad,and all Dems were good and the few bad historical Dems weren't really and truly Dems (which seems to be pretty much what some of the Repubs are trying to do now).
I said this or something similar someplace else but there were conservatives going back as far as arguably the first modern conservative, Peter Viereck (google it), who disavowed what conservatism was devolving into the minute McCarthyism reared it's ugly head in the 50s. Eisenhower was labeled a "commie mole" during his presidency by the John Birch Society and his farewell address warning about the inherent angers of the Military Industrial Complex would be compared to Dennis Kucinich today. Even Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, disavowed and repudiated the movement later in his life and before his death, and not just neoconservatism but the Religious Right. I have said this before, perhaps it will help you understand. Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower.
-
The legions sacrificed
American cultural history is a remarkably violent one. -- walter_map
Compared to whose? Violent yes, remarkably violent seems to me to overstate the case.
As an aside -- forgive me for butting in -- but Valentinian's intent, as I judge it, was as Kitt says. Valentinian can speak for himself, of course, but I think your snark detector needs recalibration, or new batteries. Also, for what it's worth, I think you owe Kitt an apology. I didn't see any attempt to belittle you, only to help you.
-
@Jim White
>>The last thing our country needs is another daddy figure. The path forward may well be one of moderation, to borrow on the theme of words with dual meanings. We need a moderator for the discussion in a true marketplace of ideas while we moderate the damage done by the radical actions that have taken place.<<
I'd like this idea, except that I don't for a second think another demogogue won't pop up in the place of whatever 'leaders' (neocons, conservatives, right-wingers -- I can't follow what to call everyone) we have now and twist Americans' minds right around their nefarious purposes all over again.
As nice as it is to think of a society where a true marketplace of ideas is the order of the day, I just don't think it'll be here for a long, long time. Whether we like it or not, we need national voices. For one thing, we need them to push the MSM; otherwise, nobody hears reason.
I don't want a daddy figure -- I want someone with a talent for cooling heads en masse.
-
@Kitt
TBD: To Be Determined
-
TBD
Thanks, Igirl.
-
A little something for the discussion...
...not on Conservative v Liberal, exactly, but 2 graphical charts on the history of the US political parties:
http://www.historyshots.com/store.cfm?IDCategory=5
Ages ago, I thought that both Con/Libs and Dems/Pubs had changed positions. Somehow.
I remembered coming across these charts awhile ago, while I was reading this thread. It took me a little while to find them, because I was sure they were by Edward Tufte, but apparently, they weren't.
-
Curiouser And Curiouser
MacK..:
OK -- I'll give you a list of prominent conservatives who held office
I can name many Republicans who held office and were decent people, and not all Americans:
Winston Churchill
In one line it's conservatives, in the next line it's Republicans, in the third line it's Winston Churchill. My head is spinning. You're calling Churchill a Republican, and telling me that I'm confused about political labels???
I must admit to being confused in one respect--I'm confused as to what this list is supposed to prove, particularly since it's composed of such a mixed bag of personages. Churchill, of course, was a mixed bag all unto himself. An advocate of using WMDs against the Iraqis, for example.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
Still in Europe:
Count Klaus von Stauffenberg
After the German old-line conservatives brought Hitler to power, thinking they could control him, they tried to get rid of him. Better late than never, I suppose. But not exactly Martin Luther King material here.
And back to the US, with Republicans who were not conservative:
William Hartman Woodin
FDR cabinet memeber. Not a conservative.
Harold L. Ickes
FDR cabinet member and central figure in the New Deal. A life-long progressive, civil rights and civil liberties advocate, sometimes as a progressive Republican, sometimes as a Bull Moose supporter of Teddy Roosevelt.
Teddy Rooseveldt (sic)
Speaking of the devil! Anyone who thinks TR was a conservative needs a l o n g vacation. A tour of all the national parks is recommended.
I could go on. My point is simple, that the right has tarred liberals and progressives with attachment to the extreme left, while at the same time claiming the mantle of being conservatives when they in reality are not.
My point is simple: you have no idea what the words "liberal," "conservative," "progressivem," or even, apparently, "Democrat" and "Republican" mean. The longer this goes on, the more incoherent your arguments get.
Just as much as we have allowed them to redefine the word liberal, you are allowing them to get away with redefining conservative to encompass a radical agenda.
Sorry, dude, but the radical agenda has been there from the get-go. The Alien and Sedition Acts were more nakedly authoritarian than anything the Bush/GOP regime passed from 2001 to 2006. And that's saying something.
I'm not saying that all conservatives are reactionary authoritarians. I am saying that reactionary authoritarians have always been present among conservative ranks, and tend to become more prominent when conservatives have more power. OTOH, when liberals are strong, conservatives tend to be on their best behavior. Which, as the Dixiecrats go to show, is not saying a whole heck of lot.
-
Timberman
American cultural history is a remarkably violent one.
"Compared to whose? Violent yes, remarkably violent seems to me to overstate the case."
Compared to just about anybody's. Go read some history. Then go catch up on current events.
"Also, for what it's worth, I think you owe Kitt an apology."
Worth nothing.
"I didn't see any attempt to belittle you, only to help you."
You see what you want to see, just like most blindered Amerikans.
Your kind of help Amerika doesn't need. What it needs - you included - is the services of a psychiatrist specializing in cult deprogramming.
Get to it.