 |
 |
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/20/2004 8:56:39 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Thursday, October 21, 2004 Sister, your thinking is so irrational, it's outright bizarre. You offer nothing more than a point-by-point rote recitation of fallacious Democrat talking points, spin-by-spin. Do you read any of the incisive analyses I send you that are based on hard facts? If you analyze what the Democrats spew, it's easy to deconstruct the vast majority of their rhetoric as nothing more than baseless, emotional propaganda. Pick a topic, any topic, and I'll deconstruct the Democrat fantasy for you based on tangible, factual, empirical data. I'll even tell you where the Democrats are correct. You may not like the "truth" but that is a different matter. Liberal Democrats prefer to emote, spin and "feel" rather than deal with real issues. For example, do you know why the Constitution says we have a "federal" government? It is because the founding fathers wanted to emphasize that this Republic is a "confederation" of states. They wanted to make it clear that the government that acts for the collective, but Constitutionally limited, benefit of that confederation is NOT a "national" government. That is a fact liberal Democrats do not like, they want a National government of unlimited authority (preferably with them in power). Therein lies the basic difference in the ideology between the two parties. The liberal Democrats believe the people should be beholden to the government for all their sustenance - the provenance of all tangible goods and services. Republicans believe that government is the servant of the people and that the people largely are responsible for themselves and their families. Big difference. The Republicans have the Constitution on their side so far. That's why the liberals want like-minded judges "legislating" from the bench - so they can win in the courts what they cannot win in Congress or from the people themselves. You may not like it - but THAT is the TRUTH. Words and their nuances are very important. Aside from the erudite, elitist, self-professed "intelligentsia" in Cupertino and Boston, or the entitlement-oriented denizens of urban ghettos, this is still the kind of America most of the pioneers in flyover country prefer. Ginger, the Democrats are lying to you and making you a compliant drone in their quest for hegemonic power over America. Talk about a "follow order" mentality. Your assertion that Bush took us to Iraq without forethought is outrageous and ignores the impact decades of terror has had on all western civilization and the intense efforts of many nations to defeat it peacefully, including both Democrat and Republican administrations in the U.S. If Clinton had succeeded with his law enforcement approach to what John Kerry has called the "nuisance" of terrorism, 9/11 would not have happened, would it? You think we should allow someone like Kerry to return to that utterly ineffective strategy? There are smoking holes in the U.S., lined with thousands of dead Americans who cry out a loud, collective NO! And, you think terrorism is a legitimate threat only to Israelis? I personally resent your characterizing me, and people like me, and our criticism of Kerry and his ilk, as predicated on a "follow orders" mentality. It's not just a legitimate difference of opinion - you are flat-out wrong. It is a fallacious argument liberals use to rationalize overwhelming military support for Bush. On the one hand, you allege lack of support for the troops, and then you condemn them on the other. The dichotomy in your logic is astounding. But, considering the indoctrination you have undergone, it is understandable. And, then you allege we are insufficiently aggressive in Iraq. Just what is it you and the liberal Democrats want? The Democrats say we don't have enough troops in Iraq and that they are poorly equipped; then complain the cost it too great, vote for the war and against funding it. The troops are great but they follow orders mindlessly. The contradictions are endless. Even a liberal New York Democrat like Sen. Chuck Schumer is slamming Kerry for his inconsistent and weak support of the Global War On Terror. Yes, we will win in Iraq. Instilling some sense of democracy there, and throughout the Middle East, is imperative. Creating an environment where the people have the freedom and liberty to hear opposing viewpoints and then to think and to believe as they choose is the only way to bring about a peaceful solution to the hatred in the Middle East that foments in the minds of the people there from birth. If you are born in Syria today, you would have no choice except to be a Muslim, and you would be taught to hate from birth. We will never have peace until we change this paradigm. Just what is the John Kerry strategy for winning in Iraq and defeating Global Terrorism, please explain it to me if you can - because Kerry has not. Let's see, global test, more sensitive and build a coalition - that IS NOT a strategy, those are sound bites designed to appeal to the liberals Schwarzenegger was talking about. Schwarzenegger DID NOT say we are fighting this war like girly women. He said those who do not take up the fight against terrorism are "girly men." A vote for undefined, non-specific "change" is more than stupid, its dangerous for America. Russia was a Czarist monarchy for nearly 1,000 years. They were communists for 70 years. How long do you believe it will take them to implement democratic reform based on free enterprise - 6 months? I am confident freedom will prevail - it is a fundamental human quest. Why do you believe the Sudan is a U.S. responsibility? I say it's time for the U.N. and the European Union to take on some of the massive burden of policing the world. We've got our hands full right now. As it is, we see how much they really care about others, and then they have the audacity to criticize us for defending ourselves and our way of life? Give me a break. Democrats complain about the "cost" of Iraq - how much do you think Sudan would cost? How long do you think we would be there? Does it matter so long as we "feel good" about ourselves? For Democrats to "win" this election, they would have to portray America and all of its people - not just President Bush - as failures. The premise of their campaign strategy is utterly odious to me, and so many others. Terrorism is real threat against America even if Californians have their collective heads in the sand.
About the Writer: The White Knight is a person who wishes to contribute "to the cause," while maintaining his privacy.
Paragraphs are your friend...
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Very interesting letter. I bet holiday dinners are lively. Best wishes.
< P >
In my case, I say nothing to my liberal sister. If I don't get her angry, she probably won't vote this time. If I tick her off, she will go to the polls just to spite me.
So, true. And don't charge someone with something you yourself engage in. Stick to facts, they resonate better than emotional charges.
Means paragraphs
you said: If I don't get her angry, she probably won't vote this time
You're lucky. I wish it was that easy to keep my liberal sister and brother-in-law from voting!
seems like a good read though
or
< br > < br >
I hope when you write to your sister, you do use paragraphs. All I would say to mine is: Name ONE just ONE real Kerry plan on anything, anything at all.
And what you would be likely to get back is either a deafning silence or, the classic, define "plan."
My sister lives in England. She is so far to the left that she thinks Bill Clinton is 'really quite conservative'. My jaw hit the floor when I hear that. She dislikes Bush but she tells me most Brits are anti-American and har Americans, for whatever reason. Probably propoganda from the 'newspapers'.
Our conversations are 'interesting' and we agree to disagree.
It seems to me that this election is running largely on emotion on both sides, and an intelligent conversation with someone who is rabidly sticking to their position is useless.
Based on my own experience, whether it's talking about politics or not, just as someone is likely not going to convert me to their side, I'm not likely to convert them to mine.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Sister, your thinking is so irrational, it's outright bizarre. You offer nothing more than a point-by-point rote recitation of fallacious Democrat talking points, spin-by-spin. Do you read any of the incisive analyses I send you that are based on hard facts? If you analyze what the Democrats spew, it's easy to deconstruct the vast majority of their rhetoric as nothing more than baseless, emotional propaganda.
Pick a topic, any topic, and I'll deconstruct the Democrat fantasy for you based on tangible, factual, empirical data. I'll even tell you where the Democrats are correct. You may not like the "truth" but that is a different matter. Liberal Democrats prefer to emote, spin and "feel" rather than deal with real issues.
For example, do you know why the Constitution says we have a "federal" government? It is because the founding fathers wanted to emphasize that this Republic is a "confederation" of states. They wanted to make it clear that the government that acts for the collective, but Constitutionally limited, benefit of that confederation is NOT a "national" government. That is a fact liberal Democrats do not like, they want a National government of unlimited authority (preferably with them in power).
Therein lies the basic difference in the ideology between the two parties. The liberal Democrats believe the people should be beholden to the government for all their sustenance - the provenance of all tangible goods and services. Republicans believe that government is the servant of the people and that the people largely are responsible for themselves and their families. Big difference.
The Republicans have the Constitution on their side so far. That's why the liberals want like-minded judges "legislating" from the bench - so they can win in the courts what they cannot win in Congress or from the people themselves. You may not like it - but THAT is the TRUTH. Words and their nuances are very important. Aside from the erudite, elitist, self-professed "intelligentsia" in Cupertino and Boston, or the entitlement-oriented denizens of urban ghettos, this is still the kind of America most of the pioneers in flyover country prefer.
Ginger, the Democrats are lying to you and making you a compliant drone in their quest for hegemonic power over America. Talk about a "follow order" mentality. Your assertion that Bush took us to Iraq without forethought is outrageous and ignores the impact decades of terror has had on all western civilization and the intense efforts of many nations to defeat it peacefully, including both Democrat and Republican administrations in the U.S.
If Clinton had succeeded with his law enforcement approach to what John Kerry has called the "nuisance" of terrorism, 9/11 would not have happened, would it? You think we should allow someone like Kerry to return to that utterly ineffective strategy? There are smoking holes in the U.S., lined with thousands of dead Americans who cry out a loud, collective NO! And, you think terrorism is a legitimate threat only to Israelis?
I personally resent your characterizing me, and people like me, and our criticism of Kerry and his ilk, as predicated on a "follow orders" mentality. It's not just a legitimate difference of opinion - you are flat-out wrong. It is a fallacious argument liberals use to rationalize overwhelming military support for Bush. On the one hand, you allege lack of support for the troops, and then you condemn them on the other. The dichotomy in your logic is astounding. But, considering the indoctrination you have undergone, it is understandable.
And, then you allege we are insufficiently aggressive in Iraq. Just what is it you and the liberal Democrats want? The Democrats say we don't have enough troops in Iraq and that they are poorly equipped; then complain the cost it too great, vote for the war and against funding it. The troops are great but they follow orders mindlessly. The contradictions are endless. Even a liberal New York Democrat like Sen. Chuck Schumer is slamming Kerry for his inconsistent and weak support of the Global War On Terror.
Yes, we will win in Iraq. Instilling some sense of democracy there, and throughout the Middle East, is imperative. Creating an environment where the people have the freedom and liberty to hear opposing viewpoints and then to think and to believe as they choose is the only way to bring about a peaceful solution to the hatred in the Middle East that foments in the minds of the people there from birth. If you are born in Syria today, you would have no choice except to be a Muslim, and you would be taught to hate from birth. We will never have peace until we change this paradigm. Just what is the John Kerry strategy for winning in Iraq and defeating Global Terrorism, please explain it to me if you can - because Kerry has not.
Let's see, global test, more sensitive and build a coalition - that IS NOT a strategy, those are sound bites designed to appeal to the liberals Schwarzenegger was talking about. Schwarzenegger DID NOT say we are fighting this war like girly women. He said those who do not take up the fight against terrorism are "girly men." A vote for undefined, non-specific "change" is more than stupid, its dangerous for America. Russia was a Czarist monarchy for nearly 1,000 years. They were communists for 70 years. How long do you believe it will take them to implement democratic reform based on free enterprise - 6 months?
I am confident freedom will prevail - it is a fundamental human quest. Why do you believe the Sudan is a U.S. responsibility? I say it's time for the U.N. and the European Union to take on some of the massive burden of policing the world. We've got our hands full right now. As it is, we see how much they really care about others, and then they have the audacity to criticize us for defending ourselves and our way of life? Give me a break.
Democrats complain about the "cost" of Iraq - how much do you think Sudan would cost? How long do you think we would be there? Does it matter so long as we "feel good" about ourselves? For Democrats to "win" this election, they would have to portray America and all of its people - not just President Bush - as failures. The premise of their campaign strategy is utterly odious to me, and so many others. Terrorism is real threat against America even if Californians have their collective heads in the sand.
About the Writer: The White Knight is a person who wishes to contribute "to the cause," while maintaining his privacy.
Special Appearance by Richard Gere at the "Save the Dust" demonstration
ought to do it...
Hello, I just wanted to pass this thought along : You can't reason a person out of a line of thinking that they weren't reasoned into. - Food for thought when talking to a lib!!!
Yeah, they hate Bush, I hate terrorists. The difference is: they get to live if Bush wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
