Eric S. Sande wrote:
...But the United States is something new. We can, and do, toss the
rascals out. On a regular basis.
On occasion we do elect a new bunch of rascals. But the system is
designed in such a way
as to never allow particular rascals enough time to do real damage.
What do
Again, I was referring to contemporary usage of the terms liberal and
conservative. If you looked at the link I gave, you will see that today
the term liberal usually refers to Modern Liberal as described there.
I cannot think of any modern conservatives who would side with the
Tories. Modern
OK, now you've done it. Your post is so riddled with factual untruths I
couldn't respond to all of them. But here a a few
1. Al-Qaeda declared war on the US in 1996 under the Clinton admin.
2. It was the Clinton administration who knew that Saddam had WMD and
called for regime change
3. The
A number of Tories did not do so because they felt the revolution
was wrong but because of religious teaching.
Henry Melchior Muhlenburg was the father of a number of active
members of the revolution. (father of Peter and Frederick both
active participants)
He felt that they were going
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Steve at Verizon stevet...@verizon.netwrote:
Again, I was referring to contemporary usage of the terms liberal and
conservative. If you looked at the link I gave, you will see that today
Liberation theology refers to the Catholic priests and nuns who
worked to protect the local people against the dictators who
controlled the governments, mostly in Latin America.
Not just Catholic. There were a number of mainline Protestants
denominations that bought into it.
Stewart -
It is sad that the moderate position which would
have included justice issues etc. did not prevail.
Religion serves best when it is a
leavening/change agent among the people and not
part of the ruling power, nor the opposition power.
A theologian once stated that we Christians
should be in
In many ways RR was the textbook neo-conservative - he was a Democrat
before as he said I did not leave the Democratic Party, The
Democratic Party left me.
On Feb 8, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
Please give me an example where liberals did overthrow a government
and replaced it
Please give me an example where liberals did overthrow a government and
replaced it with a democratic one along the lines of the western
world.
Neocons will disagree, but I nominate the USofA.
*
** List info, subscription
Those were classical liberals, aka paleoconservatives in todays
lexicon. One could argue that Lincoln's Republicans overthrew that
federal republic government by force with a more national republic,
and then FDR's brand of liberals overthrew that government when they
eviscerated limited
Ever heard of liberation theology? Seen the news reports of all the
delightful celebrities cozying up to left wing thugs and dictators?
Idolizing the Viet Cong and NVA? Worshiping at the feet of the
Sandanista's (and Ortega is at it again I hear)?
Name calling is not a substitute for
I agree with the USA part, but most actions were left/right united, as
in WWI, and WWII. But mostly the right in winning the Cold War.
And, if I may be so bold, the neocons can take credit for ousting a
totalitarian regime and establishing a multi-party representative
government in Iraq. Yes,
But mostly the right in winning the Cold War.
And, if I may be so bold, the neocons can take credit for ousting a
totalitarian regime...
I fear that historians will identify Bush 43 and his neocons as bringing
about the end of the American century. They may not even call it that. It
did not
Ever heard of liberation theology? Seen the news reports of all the
delightful celebrities cozying up to left wing thugs and dictators?
Idolizing the Viet Cong and NVA? Worshiping at the feet of the
Sandanista's (and Ortega is at it again I hear)?
Liberation theology refers to the Catholic
Please give me an example where liberals did overthrow a government
and replaced it with a democratic one along the lines of the western
world.
That's easy; here's two. The United States--original 13 colonies. India,
1947, with work of Mahandas K. Gandhi. How about the Magna Carta in 1215
At 07:48 PM 2/8/2009, you wrote:
Liberation theology refers to the Catholic priests and nuns who
worked to protect the local people against the dictators who
controlled the governments, mostly in Latin America. It has nothing
to do with celebrities. Viet Cong weren't liberal. They were
Neocons will disagree, but I nominate the USofA.
Recommend you read Crane Brinton's The Anatomy
of Revolution. The 1965 revision of a 1938 book.
This is actual, serious scholarship and it is dead on.
I do not know what your agenda is with regard to
conservatives in general, you have always
In todays categorization of the terms, in general, I consider
conservatives to believe in limited government involvement in our lives
and liberals to want more, especially at the federal level. Thus the
battles over National Health Care, federal funding of all kinds of
social programs, using
I would consider the founding fathers to be conservative, not liberal.
You've got it.
The Bill of Rights are PROHIBITIONS on what the federal government can
do...
Yep.
*
** List info, subscription management, list
But mostly the right in winning the Cold War.
And, if I may be so bold, the neocons can take credit for ousting a
totalitarian regime...
I fear that historians will identify Bush 43 and his neocons as bringing
about the end of the American century. They may not even call it that. It
did not
I would consider the founding fathers to be conservative, not liberal.
You've got it.
The Bill of Rights are PROHIBITIONS on what the federal government can do...
Yep.
Most of the founders of the United States, especially those who wrote
the Constitution considered themselves to be
At 07:44 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
Over time people have gotten better at working together in an organized
if imperfect fashion. The cons/neocons call that big government.
neocons want democracy but in the name of democracy their incompetence and
religion beliefs have created anarcy.
Many of us religious types do not identify with their so-called
religious beliefs.
They claim religious underpinning but are not really religious.
(Many folks who claim some religious belief are not truly active in
churches. For every 100 who claim a church, only 40 really attend.)
Stewart
As opposed to the world wide good liberal activists and supporters of
liberation have done over the years.
Pot, kettle, kettle, pot. Have fun knocking heads.
Matthew
On Feb 7, 2009, at 8:52 AM, gerald wrote:
At 07:44 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
Over time people have gotten better at working
On Feb 6, 2009, at 7:44 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
Until very recently in our history few Americans would assume that
if they
failed at something government would back them up.
This is plainly false. Going back 1000s of years history shows us
people
working together in an organized if
On Feb 6, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
And a principle enabler of that opportunity was a people unshackled
by
restraining government and class structures, free to make the most
those opportunities through hard work.
This is the concept of everyman as noble savage.
No, this is the
Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
Many of us religious types do not identify with their so-called
religious beliefs.
They claim religious underpinning but are not really religious.
Hence, the ironic speculations during the Bush years about who would
Jesus torture or what would Jesus drive.
Maybe
Never said otherwise.
Part of the problem with America and religion is that we have usually
mixed up civil and religious righteousness.
My faith group has always recognized a separation of the two.
Christians who undercut and say you cant be as righteous as I am
often are mixing up the two.
No, this is the concept of the rights of man. That man is not a
subject of a king bound to a station by birth, but responsible for
their own destiny - imperfect, often selfish, but endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit
Given that American history is fairly recent, what value is there in
going back 1000's of years
Wow, jingoism in the extreme. History started some 200 years ago and
nothing else counts. All I can do is sputter in disbelief.
Why do you appear to
assume that only government can serve as an
As opposed to the world wide good liberal activists and supporters of
liberation have done over the years.
Where did this happen? The liberators I recall are mostly the cons
overthrowing popularly elected governments in places like Iran [at least
twice], Chile, Australia, Honduras, Cuba
Ever heard of liberation theology? Seen the news reports of all the
delightful celebrities cozying up to left wing thugs and dictators?
Idolizing the Viet Cong and NVA? Worshiping at the feet of the
Sandanista's (and Ortega is at it again I hear)?
I love the way you and Tom keep calling
Depends if you consider Communists liberal (and before anyone complains
that I used those two words in the same sentence, the converse is NOT
necessarily the case)
Then we have Russia (yes, serfdom was terrible, but Stalin killed 30
million of his own people), China (the glorious Cultural
Please give me an example where liberals did overthrow a government and
replaced it with a democratic one along the lines of the western
world.
Velvet Revolution, Czechoslovakia. Pretty much the same thing
happened in other countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Thank you Ronald
working together in an organized if imperfect fashion (ie: government)
This is a wonderful definition. Thank you.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member
And a principle enabler of that opportunity was a people unshackled by
restraining government and class structures, free to make the most
those opportunities through hard work.
This is the concept of everyman as noble savage.
Stanley Kubrick said it very well...Man isn't a noble savage,
Until very recently in our history few Americans would assume that if they
failed at something government would back them up.
This is plainly false. Going back 1000s of years history shows us people
working together in an organized if imperfect fashion to solve common
problems.
You are arguing
ps: Basically, I think American's are spoiled rotten in general and are
beginning to get their comeuppance and a lesson about priorities and the
power and advantages of working together in an organized if imperfect
fashion (ie: government)
db
John Emmerling wrote:
Some general observations
Yes, spoiled by liberty into thinking that liberty was a natural state
of man. Something about self evident truths which I guess you think
no longer apply.
Matthew
On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:08 PM, db wrote:
Basically, I think American's are spoiled rotten in general and are
beginning to get
That statement by Jefferson in the Continuation is a real reflection
of the Enlightenment teaching of the 17 and 18th century.
Before this time the concept of liberty was very limited and only tot
hose who had.
Even in the US the early Fathers believed that only those who owned
property
I think you meant to say the Declaration of Independence, rather than
Constitution.
Liberty does not, and has not always equalled the franchise. A
compelling argument can be made that only those who have a permanent
stake in a society, and who pay taxes to support it, ought to be able
I apologize to those who are sick of seeing non-computer stuff here.
I've mentioned before, the common knowledge that the people in countries
there the taxes are high tend to feel more satisfied with life. So I dug
up an article and a study to with charts and graphs that show this.
One talks
I would like to see the source data they used for tax levels, and if
they included corporate taxes as well. Americans (and Europeans) pay
a lot of layered on (sales, gas) hidden taxes (basically taxes that
were paid by a provider) they don't really see, but do effect them.
On Jan 31,
Some general observations (I make some assertions without proof, feel free
to provide contradictory data):
1.) Compared to other western countries, Americans are significantly more
religious. Religious folk seem to see life's problems as being between
themselves and God, and don't have much use
John Emmerling wrote:
Some general observations (I make some assertions without proof, feel free
to provide contradictory data):
1.) Compared to other western countries, Americans are significantly more
religious. Religious folk seem to see life's problems as being between
themselves and
On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Jordan wrote:
John Emmerling wrote:
Some general observations (I make some assertions without proof,
feel free
to provide contradictory data):
1.) Compared to other western countries, Americans are
significantly more
religious. Religious folk seem to see
Matthew Taylor wrote:
On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Jordan wrote:
John Emmerling wrote:
Some general observations (I make some assertions without proof,
feel free
to provide contradictory data):
1.) Compared to other western countries, Americans are
significantly more
religious.
That happens in Europe the same as here.
That is a low level Civil Servant trying to impress you with the
power they do not really have but wish they do.
Stewart
At 11:30 AM 1/31/2009, you wrote:
I am neither radical right nor left. My experience with government,
both personally and as a
As a consequence, Americans don't see themselves as getting much return for
their tax dollars, and so they basically feel they are being robbed. I am
not prepared to say whether they are right or wrong. Having grown up and
lived all my life in the US, it always amazes me that people in countries
I apologize to those who are sick of seeing non-computer stuff here.
Tolerated because it proves that we have established a real community.
We had a similar tear after 9/11. It took a few weeks to peter out and I
think most of us were better for it happening.
And our computer business
I don't think it's rational to view life through a God lens, or make
decisions based on religious beliefs. The middle east is what you may get.
Again an inability to make the necessary distinctions to successfully
navagate life. The problem in the Middle East is extremeists who have
hijacked
It is all about power and retaliation.
What many folks do not know is that many Israeli's are not religious
Israeli's. The conservative Rabbi's rail against this all the time.
In Islam there is no central authority and many of the Rabid Radical
Imam's disagree with the highly moderate
This sort of hijacking has also occurred right here at home.
Recent events have given me hope that this trend is coming to an end. The
current occupant strikes me as an excellent example of someone who is devout
and rational at the same time. (disclaimer: I am extremely secular and
poorly
As for the Middle East, the way to achieve what's been achieved there is not
through religious zealotry, but through decades of foreign imperialism,
realpolitik, and proxy warfare. In almost no time, you'll have'm clinging
to their guns and bibles (qur'ans, torahs) for comfort.
Yes that too, but
Actually, that was the Deputy Director - the Director was a political
appointment by the governor. Nothing short of going back to court, at
heavy expense in time and money, could have moved him. They do not
like to loose.
Matthew
On Jan 31, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
On Jan 31, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Jordan wrote:
Matthew Taylor wrote:
On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Jordan wrote:
John Emmerling wrote:
Some general observations (I make some assertions without proof,
feel free
to provide contradictory data):
1.) Compared to other western countries, Americans
Ah a high level civil servant being a horses butt.
Yeah same story thinks they have more power than they really
do. Unfortunately we seem to clone tons of those folks.
Stewart
At 11:05 PM 1/31/2009, you wrote:
Actually, that was the Deputy Director - the Director was a political
57 matches
Mail list logo
