Frank Reichert wrote:
I do not recall a time when the left was civil. Certainly when I was in
college - early 1980s - the liberals' idea of a debate was to call anyone
who disagreed with them "racist, sexist, homophobe." Usually all three at
once, regardless of the topic. And when a conservative or even moderate
speaker came in (e.g. then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an old-fashioned
liberal Democrat), their tactic was to shout down the speaker or threaten
violence to get the speaker to cancel (e.g. the South African ambassador)
and to call that "free speech."
I screwed up, Doug. What I meant at the time to write was that much
'discivilty' was involved'... I often type faster than I write or think.
I made a huge bluder with that one last night. I still am a rather fast
typist, but sometimes, my mind doesn't catch up anymore or see the error as
quickly as it once did.
OK. It happens. I think the left has always been uncivil. While some on the
right are as well - Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson come to mind - I think the
right has been more civil than the left, even recently. (This is a response
to Robert Goodman's note.)
Perhaps, but I think you do your argument a disservice by engaging in the
same label slinging of fascist. That is an attempt to silence discussion,
not promote it. I do not agree with all or even most of Bush's policies,
but to call him fascist is more than a bit overboard.
Here I must tonight honestly disagree with you. I honestly do not have any
way to describe this (not MY government, or perhaps yours either)
government today except as entirely bent upon a fascist expediency to
truncate for its own ends, and at the expense of everyone. The phrase that
should ring home right now: "You either support us, or you support the
terrorists..." ought to ring home somehow as justification for almost every
conceivable objection to the horror we face today in America. The good news
is, that most Americans today are distancing themselves from this Regime,
and big time (at least by the latest polls)!
I happen to agree with Bush's statement "You're with us or you're with the
terrorists." Clearly one can oppose specific policies, either in theory or
in practice, but if one doesn't support the fight against the Islamic
fascists, then one is harming the fight, which puts one, in effect, on the
side of the terrorists, much as those who opposed US entry into WWII were
siding with Hitler, many intentionally, some unintentionally. I do not
believe the current war allows for neutrals, given its worldwide scope.
The disapproval ratings of Bush are fleeting. Good economic news, good news
from Iraq and that will reverse. Given what I know of marketing research,
I'm somewhat skeptical of polls anyway.
I don't know what you mean by the Bush admin not being "your" govt.; it is
whether you like it or not, much as the Clinton regime was the govt. no
matter how much I detested it.
As for a President Kerry, I think we can safely say that our taxes would
be higher and business regulations even worse. We might well have
withdrawn from Iraq, with the probable result being a resurgence of
al-Qaeda and another attack on U.S. soil.
I question both assumptions, and can't find way to honestly agree with you
on the above. Iraq will ultimately be a huge disaster, and will find a way
to bite us in the ass for years to come, after we have lost in disgrace!
And we will. This is a huge and costly blunder that we will reap for who
knows how long?
Obviously it's impossible to demonstrate a hypothetical, but if we look at
what Kerry said and ran on, and what he has done for his entire 34-year
political career, it is possible to draw certain conclusions. As for
al-Qaeda, compare the number of terrorist attacks before we entered Iraq (a
major attempt every couple of years) to the zero since the invasion.
Regards,
Doug
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
