Posted on 08/23/2013 11:44:23 AM PDT by MetaThought
One has to be simpleminded, well trained by the mainstream leftism, and completely lacking imagination to assume, as Cathy Young and her fans appear to do, that the conservatives who “admire Putin” are complete idiots and would like to see Putin, the Putin, the Russian speaking Putin in White House. Sorry, I won’t explain, it’s too embarrasing to explain the ovious.
Your comment stands in direct contradiction with a few comments on this very thread, and on many other threads I’ve seen.
Whereas Obama is a murderous thugess dictatrice presiding over a banana republic.
(evil grin)
They also apparently do not understand a basic principle of the Law of Nations, cited by Jefferson as Waashington's Secretary of State, that every Nation must be the Judge of its own internal affairs.
Nothing is more antagonistic to any nation--and hence to human freedom--than for one nation to try to alter the culture of another. Any people's culture reflects the accumulated results of their multi-generational interaction, and is hence unique to every nation.
William Flax
They are praising Putin for standing up to the gay activist lobby.
Why is this shocking?
Uhhhh - yes. Obama is a dictator. Read the news.
Well, the issue is who is preferable as a leader. If we can flush the Obamanites out of office in 2014 and 2016, I would say that Obama is as his impact can be erased.
However, it increasingly appears that is not going to happen. And it isn’t necessarily anything Obama has done.
Its directly related to the erosion of polical astuteness on the part of American voters who can elect a fraud like this into office, not once, but twice, and STILL think he is doing a great job overall - even though they apparently disagree with him on nearly every major social issue.
After all, he is the nation’s first BLACK President.
The following reason:
Putin: Will not tolerate terrorists
Obama: Support terrorist
Putin: Spoke up about Christian persecution
Obama: Crickets are chirping
Putin: Does not allow Gays to adopt
Obama: Allows Gays to be gay everywhere...even him. =)
Putin: A Russian born - became president of his own country
Obama: A Kenyan born - by fraud became president of his
adopted country - not eligible.
Putin: Likes to do manly things
Obama: Likes to do girly gay things
(Photos Please)
Yes Putin is a dictator and a communist, but we are not saying we want him. We want a leader like him to have a strong leadership - that’s all.
Putin in this day and age is good for Russia. I am not so sure he would fit into the framework of our Founder’s Constitutional intentions.
"In her second book, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, published in 1999, [Cathy Young]argues for a "philosophy" which may be called "feminism or something else".
Would your latter category of “imprisoning political opponents” include arresting and sending the homo-propagandist scumbag filth of Hollywood to some Siberian labor camp? Because, if so, I’d actually put this on the ‘positive’ side of the ledger in regards to the arguments for a Putin presidency, rather than on the ‘negative’ one.
uh, have you read the news lately? That is not far off from what is happening here.
1. Note the source: The Boston Globe.
2. Imprecise criticism of Russia’s law. A. It bans exhibiting or modeling same-sex attraction behaviors where children can see them. Actually, it’s sad any society needs a law that legislates discretion...but that’s the reality. I am sorry for all the parents who shepherd children through pornographic advertisements and displays.
B. Public sexual displays have never been considered “civil rights.”
C. The author, as with all critics, never seem to admit that the law seeks to protect children. I am sure she is aware of a very common law in all fifty (or Barack’s 57) states called in some places, “corrupting a minor.”
3. She confuses private and public violence. The Russian state has arrested protesters. There has been notorious incidents of attacks on people who have displayed homosexual behaviors. It is not correct to implicate the state in that. I wish she would have written on the wonders of freedom of expression.
4. She is correct about the church-state relationship, abortion, and the disadvantaged status of unregistered “cults” (various Protestant denominations). She perhaps overstates the popular state of religiosity. It is such a large and diverse country. Moscow and St. Peterburg are exceptions to what goes on elsewhere. State enforced secularism had its effect, though.
5. Hyper materialism does not apply to this vast nation. It definitely applies to Moscovites.
6. Many Russians see themselves apart from “Europe”. One of my students said that she would like to visit Europe. I said, “Ummm... I thought this is Europe. Maybe my map is off....” She meant Western Europe. Along with that comes a critique of the social features of Western Europe and her North American relatives. However, there is still the paradox of parades of Moscow commuters sporting brand names on their clothes; UK and US flag-attired apparel; and Samsung Galaxies, iPhones and iPads.
7. Her last two paragraphs create some confusion. She is correct about the Christian critiques of the current Russian regime. She only answers Dreher’s critique with a critique of the state-controlled church. That’s not an answer. One sin does not excuse another.
8. She does not recognize that conservatism usually means conserving the best of the past. She must be unaware that sodomy has never been state sanctioned until recently. She also must be unaware that President Putin has also spoken out against the burning of churches and extermination of Christians in Syria by the anti-government forces and the now out-of-power Egyptian MB.
9. A ruler who uses some breath to promote Biblical behavior and criticize mistreatment of Christians is a service for Christians and social conservatives, particularly when the Present Obama: a. promotes sodomy as a state policy and criticizes other nations for not adhering to Massachusetts “values”; and b. barely mentions the burning of churches and supports those doing the burning in Syria and Egypt.
10. There are plenty of other aspects of Putin’s Russia that should not be emulated. There is hypocrisy. History provides plenty of examples of religious bodies losing their souls under state tutelage. However, that should not prevent Christians for giving credit to a law that asks people not show off and push their same-sex attractions in public where minors are; and for voicing concern over the besieged Christians of Syria and Egypt.
Exactly. Putin is less anti-American, less anti-Christian, and less destructive than Obama. If we could trade with Russia, I’d go for it.
Amen brother!
I can grasp the fact that those folk who wish to trade Obama for Putin, are abandoning those [other] "traditional moral values" of which you speak, and are actually rushing headlong to do so.
I would vote for Bugs Bunny over the homosexual marxist Obamagabe.
Maybe because Obama is a faggot pole smoker who is trying to destroy the United States.
>>>Ms Young and her fans don’t seem to understand that Putin is a leader who fits the circumstances of Russia, not those of the United States. Were he the POTUS here, he’d fit the American culture, and that is what the conservatives (assume and) admire in him.<<<
Bingo. I have always said that neocon doctrine of judging every society under same measures is a failure. It was probably intentional misconception, designed to destabilize said societies under a naive belief that neocons are able to manage following chaos.
It was clear since the very beginning they can’t but their policies had a fresh start and still gaining momentum under Obama to further ruin US influence.
The reality is Jefferson or Reagan won’t make any good presidents for Syria or Libya, just like Assad junior or Q-duffy won’t make it in US politics.
A set of values and traditions are absolutely different.
You can’t drill with a hummer or nail with a drill. Societies are different in a same way and different methods required to govern them.
The problem is Americans for most part are able to reconcile freedom and responsibilities but the residents of Arab nations aren’t. They don’t give a flying hug about separation of powers, fair elections, free enterprise etc. For muslims liberty is a freedom to kill a Christian, to rape a neighbor’s underage daughter and rob a Jew. But a significant part of population dislike an idea of being killed, raped and robbed by either party. It takes no less than Saddam Hussein and public executions to keep said party from performing this way on a daily basis.
I think it is pretty much clear why Saddam didn’t need to address a question of political liberties first and it is an extremely primitive to think he didn’t just to hold power.
Saddam was good at that the majority of his people wanted, he had an economy providing higher standards of living comparing to the rest of the region, as a secular dictator he kept jihadi rapists and murderers in constant fear, both at home and he wasn’t shy to cross some national borders to bleed their noses abroad if needed.
It worked for the majority of his people well, right until jihadis provoked Saddam into some stupid (from international PR perspective) things to defend his nation and then bought western media and politicians to bring Iraq to oblivion in 1990.
You won’t sell safety before freedom in America for obvious reason, yet. It makes Saddam a bad American president.
The French, the Germans, the Russians are different is some way or another too.
If you are about to judge a foreign leader you have to evaluate his approval rating first. If one is a popular leader and his policies aren’t directly hostile to US (it doesn’t mean one has to be pro-American) consider one a good leader.
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.