Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I don't disagree with that. FWIW, my response was an attempt at humor

Not real funny. You should stick with the PoPD, that genre, at least, you have down.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Interesting. Again with PoPD.

First of all, you supporting Hillary would not be that surprising. She is not that far left of the criminal you have in office as your mayor (plus she is a Chicagolander).

Second, I have already put forth my dream ticket for 2008. Do you pay attention? Do you listen to the words or the beat?

McCain/Bush (Jeb). McCain is a real evangelical freak. Indeed. Why so much hate and bias Coltrane? Still bonking from yesterday?

No. I'm actually just fucking with you. I was making an intentional personal attack b/c you've been displaying your stigmata from previous personal attacks all day. Is that irony?

I'd love to see McCain as our next president.

(Didn't race yesterday)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I don't disagree with that. FWIW, my response was an attempt at humor re: Spanky's black/white historical classifications, and tendency to label anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with him as a member of a simpering, pacifistic Left.

Gattigap:

You just don't get it. How many times do I have to say it? I am the epicenter of the world, and I am always right. How long is it going to take for you to come to terms with that reality?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
What liberals fail to realize is that the greatest evil occurs when the individual can be sacrificed for the good of society.

Agreed. Why are they so ignorant? Is the failure of the union oppressed public schools? Or the kool aid?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Not real funny. You should stick with the PoPD, that genre, at least, you have down.

Aww. I'm touched by your concern.

Still, "this type of comment is more appropriate for a PM. Please keep your board chatter to on-topical comments."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No. I'm actually just fucking with you. I was making an intentional personal attack b/c you've been displaying your stigmata from previous personal attacks all day. Is that irony?

I'd love to see McCain as our next president.

(Didn't race yesterday)

Ha. Now that was funny and ironic. An anti-whiff, indeed.

I am down with McCain, I think he needs a Jeb or a Frist to pull in the hard right and Frist is probably out. Plus I think Jeb plays better and helps solidify Florida.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
3) I can't think of any communist government that was popularly elected. In 1917 the Karensky government was elected in Russia. The Bolsheviks overthrew the government by force. They never held an election. Mao took over by force, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Castro, and Ortega. Poland, Hungary, Romania Czecholosavakia - all coups.

Allende in Chile? Chavez in Venezuala? Putin in Russia? Mossadeq in Irag? The guy whose name escapes me in Guatamala or Hondurus in the 1950s?

Oh, and we didn't actually have the bomb after Nagasaki -- IIRC, that blast exhausted our stockpile. Given what we know about Klaus Fuchs, et al, Stalin may have known that, too. It would have meant permanent garrisons in Western Europe, and that act alone may well have resulted in a mutiny along the lines of what the French faced in 1917. (Don't think US troops would ever do that? Ever heard of the post-war "we wanna go home" riots on US military bases?)

Plus, I don't think that the American people would have tolerated it. For better or for worse, the Soviets were portrayed (even in the then-Republican media outlets like Time and Life) as our gallant friends and allies. It would be a little too 1984-ish to assume that our allies could instantly be converted into our enemies.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Aww. I'm touched by your concern.

Still, "this type of comment is more appropriate for a PM. Please keep your board chatter to on-topical comments."

In my mod role I am trying to police the content of the board, and thus that post was relevant to the whole board. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaffe as an example to the others.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
What liberals fail to realize is that the greatest evil occurs when the individual can be sacrificed for the good of society.

Capt. Fishback would agree.




Oh, wait. You were talking about the Source Of Rights and other metaphysical shit. My bad, please carry on.

[Spanky]

No matter how outlandish and exagerrated something Penske says, he always gets a response from the left. His points are always addressed yet I often get ignored - why, why, why....

Because this got ignored, I thought I would say it again to see if it gets a rise out of anyone.

I believe that Jefferson's statement is true: "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable right, among these being life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Unlike Jefferson himself, I believe this rule applies to all human beings on the planet earth. Including Arabs.

So when we are trying to help a country set up a government that will protect these rights, I believe that we are helping promote justice around the world. Arabs deserve these rights just as much as we do, and they are entitled to these rights just as much as we are.

When someone says you are trying to impose western values on these countries, I disagree. I think we are trying to impose universal values on these countries. People said it was naive to try and impose these values on the Japanese and Koreans. But it worked there because these values are not western they are universal.

A moral relativist might say that in Arab countrys these rights are not part of their culture so it is both arrogant and naive to think that we can impose a system to protect these rights. Hello Ty.

I believe these rights are universal and apply to all cultures and people. It is interesting though when you discuss something like female circumscission how all of a sudden liberals discover universal rights and don't think it is arrogant to impose such a right on different cultures. Hello RT.

What I also find hypocritical is when we are critisized for trying to impose these rights on another country, but when we do, and we don't impose 100% of these rights for practical reasons - in other words choosing 95% instead of Zero (like not giving women equal rights with men so we can get a constitution passed that protects most of these rights) then we are critisized for not insisting on 100% of these rights. If it is arrogant and naive to impose our system and values on these countrys, then isn't it better that we only impose on 95% of our values instead of a 100%. If we are not supposed to impose our values in the first place how can you complain that we have not imposed specific values.

Either morals or rights are universal, and we should try and spread them, or they are not, and we should not blink an eye when females are circumsized in foreign countrys or widows are thrown on funeral pyres.

Telling these countrys to stop mutilating their young women and killing widows is either an arrogant and naive attempt to impose our western values on these countrys or cultures or an attempt to promote an absolute universal code. You can't have it both ways folks.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Allende in Chile? Chavez in Venezuala? Putin in Russia? Mossadeq in Irag? The guy whose name escapes me in Guatamala or Hondurus in the 1950s?

Oh, and we didn't actually have the bomb after Nagasaki -- IIRC, that blast exhausted our stockpile. Given what we know about Klaus Fuchs, et al, Stalin may have known that, too. It would have meant permanent garrisons in Western Europe, and that act alone may well have resulted in a mutiny along the lines of what the French faced in 1917. (Don't think US troops would ever do that? Ever heard of the post-war "we wanna go home" riots on US military bases?)

Plus, I don't think that the American people would have tolerated it. For better or for worse, the Soviets were portrayed (even in the then-Republican media outlets like Time and Life) as our gallant friends and allies. It would be a little too 1984-ish to assume that our allies could instantly be converted into our enemies.

Yes, Roosevelt was a little too comfortable consorting with the commies. Birds of feather.........

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
No matter how outlandish and exagerrated something Penske says, he always gets a response from the left. His points are always addressed yet I often get ignored - why, why, why....

Because this got ignored, I thought I would say it again to see if it gets a rise out of anyone.

I believe that Jefferson's statement is true: "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable right, among these being life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Etal....................

There is no rebuttal. They hoped by ignoring it they wouldn't have to acknowledge the illegitimacy and emptiness of their own faux-ideology.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
How do you "impose" democracy? At worst, if you're really "imposing" something, they simply vote for the status quo, and you walk away, right?

Or, are they really just incapable of self-rule?

Tell me if you would believe the following message:

"If you don't hold elections, we will bomb you into oblivion.

"However, if you do hold elections, we want them to be genuine and free and fair. It's okey-dokey with us if you elect someone we consider to be the enemy. Really! We love only democracy -- we are not trying to tell you who to elect."


To me, threatening a country with nuclear annihilation if they don't hold elections just maybe suggests you are willing to interfere with the political process.

And, of course, what if you find that the election was tampered with (like, say, Marcos in the Philippines.) Do you nuke the country then? Or only if you decide you don't like the beneficiary of the tampering?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, Roosevelt was a little too comfortable consorting with the commies. Birds of feather.........

As were noted leftists Winston Churchill, Lord Beaverbrook, Henry Luce, and Bob Hope.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Or another way of looking at is practical experience as opposed to pie in the sky theories that have never been tested.

Sorry, Turd-blossom, but your stories don't necessarily rise to that level.