Daughter Was Deployed Today

[AndyKubicki]

Andy---I'm a Liberal and proud of it, a 2-fisted FDR New Deal Liberal.

Don't worry Tommy! There's a cure somewhere!

Actually, it's great that you can say that. And as long as you can remain consistant in your application of criticism, I can respect that.

Among Conservative ideas that didn't work, just in American history:

Monarchy -Conservative????

Slavery -Oh please! Abraham Lincoln (though I don't know how liberal or conservative would apply to him)

Property qualifications for voting -I like the idea of intellectual qualifications! But that would not be constitutional, would it?

Laisse Faire Capitalism - I'm not for that, as I have stated before, I'm just as afraid of corporate greed as governmental greed. Capitalism with just a few controls and limits works fine!

Jim Crow -Whell did a great job with this

Prohibition -Yup!

Sodomy laws -not interested in this one. In principal, it should be removed from the books.

Not letting women vote

Klu Klux Klan -Oh come on! This is evil, not conservative!

[Fish]

And if I claim to be a wise man,it surely means that I don't know. Kansas

[Deang]

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Ghandi

[whell]

TBrennan: "If you think you can give me a history lesson I'm all ears. Though as Watkins pointed out you missed my point completely here. I'm pretty good on history, have over 1000 books on the subject.

I'm eager to hear your defenses of property qualifications for voting and The Fugitive Slave Act. :-)"

Didn't miss your point at all. Again - Jim Crow laws were more about geographic politics than liberalism or conservatism. They certainly were not "conservative" in nature.

Fugutive Slave Act? OK, I'll bite. The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the group of laws referred to as the "Compromise of 1850." On January 29, 1850, 70-year-old Henry Clay, who also had a hand in another bill that helped to curtail the spread of slavery, presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress.

In this compromise, the antislavery advocates gained the admission of California as a free state, and the prohibition of slave-trading in the District of Columbia. The slavery party received concessions with regard to slaveholding in Texas and the passage of this law. Passage of this law was so hated by abolitionists, however, that its existence played a role in the end of slavery a little more than a dozen years later. This law also spurred the continued operation of the fabled Undergound Railroad, a network of over 3,000 homes and other "stations" that helped escaping slaves travel from the southern slave-holding states to the northern states and Canada.

By the way, abolitionists included a number of individuals who one might call "conservative". For instance, the Pennsylvania Abolition society members included George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine.

You want to look at history through the eyes of the 21 century and judge it based on today's standards of morality. No doubt that such a view would produce an abohorent view of such laws, and rightly so. However, at that time, those who desired to curtail the spread of slavery in the expanding US terrories beleived that a series of compromises was the best way to achieve their goals. Obviously, their efforts only further exacerbated the divisions between north and south, and ultimately contributed to the start of the Civil War. However, their intentions (containing the spread of slavery), though misguided in their application, we at their core, possibly noble.

[Deang]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/FugitiveSlaveAct.html

You should always list your sources, and use quotes when "quoting".

[hwatkins]

I am a flag waving liberal. Having sat on a school board and watched the 'like me' country club conservatism (those that are 'in' the group and those that want to be) try to enforce a wide variety of rules that are now covered by the new conservative groups like 'Civil Rights Association' that in essence gaurantee that those 'like us' will not be contaminated by those 'not like us' can be disheartning. It is a new form of segregation and, regardless of attractive evangelistic soundbites, the desire is to have a common type of person as the most priviledged. How unfortunate that the rhetoric makes people believe that the 'not us' are there because they aren't willing to 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps'. Applying this logic to a 7 year old kid is segregationism at its worst. Enough of my liberal evangelism...

OK - here is my delimma:

As a proponent of Democracy and capitalism (still being that love my country, flag waving liberal), just how far should we go in making the world safe for democracy? The most common justification for this war has changed from battling terrorism to introducing democracy to a despot lead country. How far do we really want to go with this, and then what do we do with the remainder of the countries in this world that are not democracies as we describe it?

This becomes an interesting morality play. I am right in the middle - no doubt that the spread of democracy, accompanied by an expanding middle class, is a recipe for success and internal peace. However, how far do I go to force this solution and what actions trigger my intervention? Do I fall prey to the 'like us' conservative syndrome and force my expectations on that country's society? Or through my internal discussion and subsequent inaction do I let a major funder of terrorism continue? Geesh - morality causes interesting internal conversations.

When we make such moves, we darn well better be less rigid than quite a few of our conservative leaders - if you look close they show extreme favoritism to christian, middle to upper class capitalists that love their guns and dislike public discussions of sex While that was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, the real point here is that if what we do looks like repression of a class or a religion, we can anticipate a world wide response. It is a recipe for war - repressed to the point that they feel they have nothing to lose. Add poverty to that, and initial foray success, then you will see an embolden action that will truly be the start of a very interesting time.

No real point-counterpoint here, just an open dialog of some of my thoughts...

[Deang]

We are not a democracy.

We are a Republic.

That way, the opinions, desires, and rights of the few are not trampled down by mob rule.

[Audible Nectar]

There's a very interesting poll question on the CNN.com home page today, which asks:

"Is torture ever justified in coercing information from suspects?"

As of the time of this post, it is about 2/3 IN FAVOR (a yes answer) of such actions, out of just over 100,000 votes. I realize this is unscientific, but still........

THAT'S SCARY - in fact, it's just plain chilling.

[RangerSix]

----------------

On 3/4/2003 10:49:21 AM mdeneen wrote:

But the truth is, it is US that hates fundamental Isalm, and we seek a moral justification to rid the world of it.

---------------

That's not a fair statement to make.

From the USS Cole, to the US Embassy bomblings, to the 9-11 attacks, how many times must America endure such aggression? The REAL truth is that fundemental Islam HATES the U.S. and IT seeks moral justification to rid the world of us. I would have thought by now most American's would have realized this.

Before 9-11, most Americans could have cared less about the Middle East.

[anarchist]

Wow!

I am just stunned by all the rhetoric here. Flag waving liberals. Conservative Christian Right. Wah. Wah. Wah.

This country is a frigging mess largely because "individuals" feel the need to brand themselves with some asinine label, associate themselves with some moronic cause proposed by some dumbass politician or other buttwipe with too much time on his hands, and all the while, keep greasing the wheels of the machine which is running rampant over them.

Wake up. Read some Thoreau. Read some Jefferson. Think for yourself and ask not what your country can do for you BUT rather what your country is doing to you.

With that in mind, I have largely grown bored with all these little men trying to boost their ego much like old, fat bald men purchasing shiny red corvettes and chasing bleach bottle blondes and advocate bombing all their asses back into the stone age. Then maybe, just maybe, we can turn our attention towards our own internal problems and those similar little men who are busy running it - both liberal and conservative.

PS. The particularly annoyed part of me thinks perhaps a "lost" mission over the Vatican wouldn't be that bad an idea either. After all, we do want to maintain the separation of church and state and the Vatican sets a poor example for all the lunatic Muslims in this regard.

[Parrot]

mdeneen says: "The president has declared that we will write the rest of history for all the worlds peoples."

Please give us the source for this statement. I must have missed it.

[Parrot]

I can't wade through all these posts, sorry.

I didn't hear the President's remark or read about it, but assuming he said it, I believe you are misinterpreting it. It does not mean we're going to invade Australia and tell them they can't use slang. It means that instead of having a dictator in Iraq who enforces his rule by threat of death, the Iraqis will have freedom. If you want to get into a semantics debate about whether giving someone freedom is enforcing your will on them, I'm not interested in playing.

The President was eager to stay out of world affairs before 9/11. But that changed things. Now the US is going to be proactive. We have had enough status quo and stability. Now it's time for a big shake-up.

EDIT: Thanks for the quote reference. I do find that has quite a different flavor to it, and I see nothing wrong with it in the slightest.

[rowooo]

Paulparrot, If YOU don't see anything slightly wrong with that statement, and your view is universal throughout our country, than Lord have mercy on all of us.

[Fish]

For some reason shooting American SOLDIERS in the BACK as they march toward a war(they didn't choose)does not seem patriotic or noble or enlightening,just sick.Please see a shrink and get to the REAL root of the problem.

[Parrot]

Rowooo,

No one should claim that any view expressed by anyone is held by every American.

I take the President's statement to mean that the war that terrorists started, we will finish, as the victors. He's talking about a particular moment in history, which I believe refers to terrorism against the US, and he's saying that the US is not simply going to be passive about it. And what the US does most certainly will be historic--probably everybody here, including Bush-haters, will agree on that.

I don't see any statement by the President that the US is going to control every nation. Instead the US will work to spread freedom. Freedom does not include the freedom to crash hijacked airliners into our skyscrapers, however.

[Parrot]

Mdeneen,

Muslims do not all think alike. Anyway, since I missed the President's remark, and I read and see quite a lot of news, I bet most Muslims missed it too.

In the end, the words don't matter much. What matters is what happens in Iraq and the rest of the world after we destroy Saddam's regime. I think things will improve.

Perhaps you prefer the path of Carter, who wanted all the world to love him. That didn't work too well in Iran, did it? It would be interesting to know how the world would be different now if Carter had not allowed Iran to "hold America hostage" for all that time. I look at that as the exact wrong posture to take. Weakness is not respected.

[rowooo]

Paulparrot....Where in my last post did I mention that any view expressed by anyone is held by every American. Take your time and carefully read the posts before commenting. By the way, which part of "The REST will be written by US" don't you understand?

[TBrennan]

whell---That was a very good defense of the Fugitive Slave Act, I'm impressed.

I wouldn't call Washington, Paine and Jefferson Conservatives. They were the Liberals of their time, the Conservatives being the British Government and the Loyalists. Both Conservative and Liberal are moving targets and a revolutionary can become a Conservative once his revolution is won.

I consider Conservatives those who are content with, and fight for, the Status Quo. Thus those who fight against social and economic reforms that make things more inclusive are to my thinking Conservatives. Thus to me those who defended slavery were by nature Conservatives. One could argue that the Union men who fought secession were Conservatives too since they fought to keep the stautus quo. But they were less conservative than the Slavers.

And so on. :-)

[Parrot]

Rowoo,

When you said to me "and your view is universal throughout our country." I am saying that that is preposterous, not only that some view I have would be universal throughout the country but that any view by anyone would be held by every single person throughout the US.

As for the other part of your post, it is obvious that you are the pot calling the kettle black. Your reading of that remark is so bad that you think THE REST means that Bush wants to control every facet of every single person's life in the entire world? Come on, you've got to be kidding me.

[rowooo]

Forget it