Posted on 07/13/2003 5:14:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
That's not an accurate account of a summary that wasn't so neat. Here it is...
"And the anti-Republican/anti-Bush paleocon/paleolibertarian/buchananite/rockwellian/anarchist movement has combined with the Democrat/French/German/Iraq pro-terror axis."This is another brush too broad.
There are times when I am in opposition to President Bush.
There are times when I think the GOP is clueless or craven.I'm a registered Republican and vote the straight ticket every time out, though this next election is up in the air for me, as I think this President is leading this party in the wrong direction on a number of issues. If the election was tomorrow, I'd vote for him, but I become more pessimistic about the prospects by the day. Yet, I'm hardly in the "Democrat/French/German/Iraq pro-terror axis."
LOL!!!!
What -- now I'm part of a big anti-jewish debate-squashing cabal? Not to mention that I've somehow made the transition to pluralhood (R9etb themselves).
I tell you what, though -- you're putting out a whole lot of effort on this. Why?
Then again, you say yourself that you don't go tossing out "neo-con" as if it really meant something. It really is an excellent indicator, though. Give it a shot sometime -- it's kinda fun.
The conversation went off-topic with an unwarranted insinuation of anti-Semitism, and not by OWK or Jolly Rodgers when they took exception to the charge.
r9etb, prehaps you can, with some finality, retract the comment about "neocon" = "jew-boy communists" in the eyes of those who use the term?
No, I said I don't use it because I don't have a handle on what it means. It has no utility to me.
Since, however, I concede that I don't get the term "neocon," I'm not going to make hasty generalizations about those who do use it.
Actually, I can't really retract it because, having read enough from those who use the term (see again Mr. Buchanan), I believe there are many who actually hold that view. Had I not believed it, I wouldn't have said it.
It apparently doesn't apply to OWK or Jolly Rodgers, so I will happily apologize to them specifically.
That said, can we get off the topic, and your refereeing of it, and return to the cowardly French?
It apparently doesn't apply to OWK or Jolly Rodgers, so I will happily apologize to them specifically.
Tell me if I've misunderstood. You're going to let stand a bigoted comment, which you concede falsely accuses at least some people of bigotry, and amend it on an apologize-as-you-go basis?
Suppose someone actually said "neocons are jew-boy communists," and offered to periodically grant specific exceptions?
I don't think the latter approach is acceptable, nor is yours.
Actually, if you'll look back, the conversation started off topic about post #149 with a comment by OWK, and continued further afield when Jolly Rodgers chimed in at #181.
Tells me that we have a hopelessly corrupted political system wherein we are reduced to electing anyone even remotely considered suitable.
- In other words, - principled men who honestly state their political opinions cannot be elected.
A truly bizarre development in 'democracy' as practiced by the dual party rinocrat regime in power.
It might tell you that but it isn't true. No political system can be less corrupt, for very long, than the nation it serves.
Unsupported, meaningless observation. Our 'nation' is not corrupt.
If ours is so corrupt why isn't there one voice worth listening to with a hint of an idea how to change it?
There are thousands of articles posted at FR with "voices worth listing to", on exactly these subjects. You can't hear em, oddly enough.
It appears to me that the system is LESS corrupt than it used to be, even during the era of the founders. Naive sentimentality and romantic nostalgia aside, there is no "golden age" worth returning to as even a slight knowledge of American history reveals.
Depends if you believe in liberty for the common man I suppose. Barring slaves, I see vastly more personal freedom for more people in the historical record of 1800's america then in the 1900's.
Where have you seen any viable alternatives? Who has escaped the radar screen so as to not even be worth considering? Give us some alternatives to consider.
As I said, the political/media system is rigged to prevent viable alteratives.
- So far. The rise of the WWW and an economic collapse of the bread/circus merry go round may change this standoff.
We have plenty of inexperienced, unelectable, theoreticians without a scintilla of practical political experience. Certainly none even worth suppressing or repressing because of their "principles." Critics of Bush have yet to come up with a valid criticism outside of exaggerations and misinformation when not outright lies.
Ahh yes, somehow in your mind the 'critics of Bush' are responsible for our loss of liberties. - Bushwa poppycock.
No, #149 and #181 were responses, harsh, to be sure, to a pretty inflammatory statement. Those responses are no more off-topic than the statement to which they responded.
r9etb made a slanderous post at #227, and has conceded, at the very least, that it's not true of eveyone to whom it applies. Yet he's declined to retract it, and as can be seen by his post at #292, feels the conversation is over.
Frankly, does it really matter what's "on-topic," when a slander has been posted? Don't those who've been slandered deserve the opportunity to confront the poster who did so?
Posting a slander and then claiming that rebuttals are "off-topic" strikes me as an example of hit-and-run debating.
If someone slanders you on a thread, you're not hijacking it simply taking exception to the post.
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.