I appreciate you illustrating my point for me. I'm sure it won't take long for someone from the other side to validate my entire post.
Serious question: Do you really think it's evenly distributed? Do you not think there is something inherent in conservatism that makes it more prone to being reactionary? I say this being neither liberal nor conservative, or, perhaps more accurately, being a bit of both. There are many strenghts to conservatism, IMO, but I think a neutral observation would say that it is less flexible than liberalism. Some might even see that as a strength in some ways, but the kind of lock step mentality you're discussing isn't one of them. This is not to say that there aren't liberals who are reactionary, or that there aren't flexible conservatives...we see examples of both on this board...but that the tendencies have partisan definition. I have been assumed to be Republican because of my stance on abortion, for example, but that was, I think, twice at most, while I have repeatedly been dismissed as a Democrat because of my position on the war, even by people who have already been told my voting record. Take a look at the support levels for the war, for example. There have been periods when a great many liberals supported the war, to some degree. But the bulk of Republican supporters have not varried a whit in their support; nothing which has occured has wavered them. IMO, it is that kind of singlemindedness that either leads to or is syptomiatic of the kinds of groundless dismissive cathphrases of the other side evident in your post. One of the strengths of liberalism is that it is, by definition, open. Now this also makes it less politically powerful at times, as intransigence in a minority share government like ours does wonders for your electoral base, and it also makes you more prone to espousing flawed ideologies, but it certainly makes you more open to new ideas and the possibility that other sides have merit. Again, extremists on either end resemble each other more than their particular side, but the generalized liberal is more open, by definition, then the genralized conservative. So I feel that your post, insinuating as it does that blind rhetoric is endemic to the species without prejudice, while diplomatic in the extreme, does a disservice to the definitive differences of either idealogy.
Gore: What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances. The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th. Bush lied! He lied to us! More stupidity and more comments designed to inflame the left-wing wingnut audience this speech was aimed at. If the intel was flawed, so be it. But I don't believe for a second that GWB, despite his flaws, was invading Iraq without a good reason. I love this "rush to war" talking point the liberals made for months and still somewhat do. We went to the UN, they were unwilling to enforce 12 years of toothless UN resolutions because they were on the take from Saddam, so we acted in what we thought was our best interest. Gore is a hypocrite on Iraq (he claims that he passed the deciding vote to go to war in 1991, which he did not) and slammed Bush for stopping the war too soon, but after the war he said: A liar, don't you think? And what are these wise constraints he speaks of? The UN? The UN is a corrupt organization run by dictators and is a direct threat to our interests. It's hilarious that something we created could turn out to be such a dud. Any organization that places Libya!? in charge of a human rights commission is totally irrelevant. There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him. When was the last attack on our nation, Mr. Gore? How are we less safe? Because we're attacking the terrorist bastards everywhere from the Phillipines to Yemen? Because we decided to do something you and the cowardly liar of a President you served with didn't have the cojones to do? So what if the Frenchies and Germans don't like us? When did they possess veto power over our foreign policy? He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name. So in other words, Iraq would be better with Saddam in charge, eh, Al? It would be better he have nukes and such to threaten his neighbors and even further destabilize the ME, right? We are evil butchers and our cause is no more just than that of the terrorists, right Gore? President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.] The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks. I love when people b**** about something but have no plan of their own to rectify the situation. So we should just run away, just like you and your cowardly boss did from Somalia because you felt that it would hurt your precious poll numbers, right? The ISS is not exactly what I'd call a "centrist" organization, so I take their words with a serious block of salt. I could go on and on about this guy, but jeez, the speech is of Castro-length. It's proof that when the mainstream of the left (Gore) have gone over the cliff to the funny farm, I'd hate to see the direction the fringe leftists have gone in recently, the Ramsey Clarks and Michael Moores of the world. If this wasn't a serious time, this meltdown and lapse into paranoia would be downright hilarious.
I'm sorry, that is the incorrect reply. You were supposed to respond with a slightly less enthusiastic: We got spirit, yes we do, we got spirit, how 'bout you? To which I would triumphantly respond: WE GOT MORE! WE GOT MORE! WE GOT MORE! And then I can feel much better about myself and my little life. Instead, you robbed me of my self worth.
Conservatism: 1.The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. Reactionary: 1. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative. Hmmmm....Guess we'll have to agree to disagee.
Al Gore is truly the devil!!!...As much as loathed Clinton for the much ill-conceived 1994 gun ban, he never seemed so whacked out in speeches, like your Deans and Gore...Surely, Surely, he must realize he is looking like a phoney, a fool and an ass. If I wanted to see and hear such extreme character theactrics, I would be eager for the entertainment value and surely not to take the performance with any grain of salt... It's too hilarious, silly, and comical... Any politician who screams, shakes, and spits saliva like he has time and time again is simply just here for our entertainment fodder... Let's just all have a good laugh and hope for his next show soon enough...
Faos did say that Bush wasn't responsible for the atrocities at AG prison. It was pointed out that he wasn't directly responsible but it was his appointees, and people working for him that were. When employees hired by an employer do poorly the Employer does deserve some blame. That was as far as debate on the substance of debate went It was two posts in all the pages. Other supporters of Gore's speech pointed out bits of the text and subject matter that they liked, the anti-Gore folk snapped back with ... nothing. In case you missed it, during the speech Gore spoke at louder than normal volume, and worked up a sweat. Because he did that, it must mean he's crazy. Wow Gore has lost his mind. Don't you know regardless of the saliant points made in a speech, if a politician raises his voice he's obviously lost his mind. That's been the argument we've seen over and over by the Anti-Gore folks.
Ever heard of that saying "never let them see you sweat?" I also am appalled by what he said. The combination of the two is proof why he's lost his mind and is a symbol for how hilarious the left is when they are out of power and desperate.
