Sarah, I said "I" didn't think you were "that" conservative. Sometimes when one finds strength in numbers as there are a few more conservative types around then there used to be, they tend to huddle. Awhile back I tried to assert a common ground with you on atheism, if you recall, so I have not been closed-minded towards your personal convictions or because of them. I had an exchange with Bree last weekend on Regan/HIV/ Alzheimers. In the post I stated my opinion of all the links and articles brandished about in an effort to prove a point or misprove anothers. I said that these articles were opinion laced and slanted. Now every post you and Kasey put up this week made snide reference to my comments, often using my exact words. Yet when the journalism thread came up - you both souded a lot like me. If we were friends here, as Kakki claims we are, you could have included me and teased me, but instead you treated me like I was OBTUSE. Please, I am a street wise punk of a 45 year old, it's not getting by me. At least one of you if not both knew how catty you were being. I really just wanted to ignore but I am a bit of an emotional sort.
Sarah wrote: > Susan, I promise I'm not being obtuse, but I honestly have no idea > what you're talking about. "The speed of my reply"; I wasn't "that" > conservative until more recently; the childishness; your "exact > words" you noticed, "fun and games" etc etc - I really have no idea > what you mean. Please do say. > > Regarding what you say about liking the distinctions of ideologies, > because you like to know where your enemy is coming from - this is > likely to lead to labelling people wrongly. I don't think it's > possible any more to lump people together into old 1960s ideologies > of left versus right, because there are so many new ways of looking > at things and so many new issues. Well I don't want there to be a distinction, so why can't everyone just think like me no need for arguing then! LOL! But seriously, That is what you think. I think in order to protect my postions and until people are more honest and there is more of that "peace, love and understanding" I will not trust others political ideoligies. The work that has been done is too precious and the work that lies ahead is too important. This blurring of the lines is to me a tactic to break down the strength of a position or the left. Sarah: Take animal rights for example. Is > supporting animal rights leftwing or rightwing? If you go to an > animal rights meeting, you'll find every shade of political opinion > there, united in a belief that animals have moral, and ought to have > legal, rights. Me: Amazing how concerned we are with animal rights yet humans are still treated like animals or property. Of course again I am not so dense to see that on this particular issue you could have anmial lovers from the left or right. Again though what side do most of the animal experiment types come from - hmmm? I wonder. Sarah: Same with feminism, campaigning against homophobia, > anti-racism, campaigning for the rights of disabled people, > environmentalism, you name it. Me: AND you are honestly telling me that those issues you just stated are of concern to the right as much as the left - maybe they are roadblocks to the right and their agendas, but please, feminism, homophobia - ANTI -racism you are kidding or and I really want you to take this as a joke Sarah - can you say obtuse?! LOL! I happen to be a feminist, lesbian, anti-racist, environmentalist - you mean I have wrongly been a Democrat all these years?! Sarah please, not here no way are you going to blur the lines for me here. Did too much marching in my day - remember "Most Radical Student Award winner! Sarah: And the war in Iraq is the same. One > of the (so-called) left's darlings in Britain, Nick Cohen of the > Observer, is passionately in favour of war in Iraq, because he wants > to see the Iraqi people liberated, and he sees the war as an issue > the left should embrace, and is astonished that they don't. Me: He may be a leftisit but he's not a pacifist. And I am 99% of the time. One of the ways to avert war is throught the "Lori" plan. Assasinate the mother! If we can break the laws of the U.N. to go to war, then we can change the laws and allow the CIA to go in there and "dispose" of him. It's an option/alternative to war. Not to mention the best plan yet and at least a temporary fix the French/German plan. Sarah: And another one: if you support nuclear power, are you left or right? > Until a decade ago, you'd have been on the right, but now, with > Kyoto, an increasing number of people traditionally regarded as > leftwing are wondering whether nuclear power is better than burning > fossil fuels. And so on. Me: Some may wonder but I have heard nor seen any major shift here, either. Sarah: I think a point comes where the labels don't refer properly anymore, and maybe should be abandoned. Me: Not a fan of labels in general, but I believe politically they are still necessary. I don't think the melting pot has extended itself as much as you think into the political philosophy arena. And I would warn those who are passionate about their positions not to fall into this belief system, too far. It can mean disater for your side, eventually when everything is watered down and desensitized to the point of not having any opinion. That would be the direction you are pointing in Sarah, in my opinion. A lemming society. Although you may be correct there is "some" shifting and have been some changes within some of these philosophies. > > PS The speed with which I'm replying doesn't mean anything. It's > just that I'm sitting at the computer. How come I take so long to write one damn post!? LOL! I am sitting right here as well! Take care, Peace, Susan NP: Norah Jones/ Don't Know Why Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
