Skip to main content

Davey D


House Rejects Net Neutrality

The First Amendment of the Internet the governing principle of net neutrality, which prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment took a blow from the House of Representatives Thursday.

Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms the House voted 321 to 101 for the disingenuously-named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE). That bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections creates an opening that powerful telephone and cable companies hope to exploit by expanding their reach while doing away with requirements that they maintain a level playing field for access to Internet sites.

"Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, (Thursday's) vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation." says Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union.

In case there was any question that Kenney's assessment was accurate, the House voted 269-152 against an amendment, offered by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, which would have codified net neutrality regulations into federal law. The Markey amendment would have prevented broadband providers from rigging their services to create two-tier access to the Internet with an "information superhighway" for sites that pay fees for preferential treatment and a dirt road for sites that cannot pay the toll.

After explicitly rejecting the Markey amendment's language, which would have barred telephone and cable companies from taking steps "to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to accessservices over the Internet," the House quickly took up the COPE legislation.

The bill drew overwhelming support from Republican members of the House, with the GOP caucus voting 215-8 in favor of it. But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106 to 92. The House's sole independent member, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a champion of internet freedom who is seeking his state's open Senate seat this fall, voted against the measure.

Joining Sanders in voting against the legislation were most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including its co-chairs, California Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, as well as genuine conservatives who have joined the fight to defend free speech and open discourse on the internet, including House Judiciary Committee chair James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, and Intelligence Committee chair Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan.

The left-meets-right voting in the House reflected the coalition that has formed to defend net neutrality, which includes such unlikely political bedfellows as the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, the American Association of Retired People, the American Civil Liberties Union and all of the nation's major consumer groups.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, opposed COPE, while House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, were enthusiastically supported it.

Among the Democrats who followed the lead of Hastert and Boehner as opposed to that of Pelosi were House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Maryland Representative Ben Cardin, who is running for that state's open Senate seat in a September Democratic-primary contest with former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. Illinois Democrat Melissa Bean, who frequently splits with her party on issues of interest to corporate donors, voted with the Republican leadership, as did corporate-friendly "New Democrats" such as Alabama's Artur Davis, Washington's Adam Smith and Wisconsin's Ron Kind all co-chairs of the Democratic Leadership Council-tied House New Democrat Coalition.

The fight over net neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have introduced legislation to codify the net neutrality principles of equal and unfettered access to Internet content into federal law. Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumers Federation of America, thinks net neutrality will find more friends in the Senate, at least in part because the "Save the Internet" coalition that has grown to include more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals is rapidly expanding.

"This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality," says Cooper.

Cooper's correct to be more hopeful about the Senate than the House. But the House vote points up the need to get Democrats united on this issue. There's little question that a united Democratic caucus could combine with principled Republicans in the Senate to defend net neutrality. But if so-called "New Democrats" in the Senate side with the telephone and cable lobbies, the information superhighway will become a toll road.

Peace out for now
Holla at your Senator before you holla back at me...

http://www.senate.gov/
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
PLUS - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT WHAT YOU DESCRIBE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL PROCESS - COMPROMISING, HORSE TRADING ON ISSUES, AND OTHERWISE "TRIANGULATING" ONE'S POSITIONS TO GAIN/MAINTAIN POWER. WITHOUT CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE/PRESSURE - THERE WOULD NOT BE THE NEED FOR POLITICAL COMPROMISE AND LIBERAL POSITIONS WOULD RULE THE DAY. WHAT YOU DECRY HAS MORE TO DO WITH OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE TENSION THAT EXISTS BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES AND LESS TO DO WITH LIBERALISM ITSELF.


All of the above changes were the actions of past Democrats, not modern-day ones. And the actions of past Democrats was not out of some inherent kind-heartedness, it was because Black and White radicals PUSHED them to pass such measures. Theodore Roosevelt made minimum wage laws because left-wing labor unions and trade unions in the US were powerfully organized and demanded it.

FDR passed the New Deal after the US Communist Party won over 1,000,000 votes in the election and enjoy popular support amongst Northern Democrats and Progressives.

The Vietnam War ended after years of protest from the left-wing and near-militant protest from Hippies and radical college students (remember Kent State?). The Democrats mostly supported the War at first, it was "fringe radicals" who put the most palpable fire on LBJ and Nixon's asses to get out of Vietnam.

For almost every liberal and social democratic measure in US society you can trace, you'll find that it was "fringe radicals" who twisted the nuts of liberals to pass those measures. Just like you'll find that many conservative measures passed in the US had "fringe reactionaries" that put pressure on the government to pass them.

quote:
Perhaps the radicals that you love are really just idealists who prefer to live in the arena of ideas than pragmatists who would rather make a tangible difference in peoples' lives.


Do you know why radicals don't actively pass more measures themselves? They're not in power and almost no group in power is sympathetic to them. But you'll find that groups in power (both Republicans and Democrats) do have friendlier relationships with right-wing fringe reactionaries (such as the KKK, the Constitution Party, the Moral Majority, the Creator's Party, the Council of Conservative Citizens' Party, etc. all of which have a signficant influence on Congress).

The reason "left-wing fringes" don't have more power is because the government is far closer to the right than the left, and since they are in power they are able to mold American citizens to be the same way. For example, the US Libertarian party (which is economically "far-right wing") has a much bigger following than the US Anarchist parties (which are economically "far-left wing"). The US Council of Conservative Citizens' party and the US Constitution party have a bigger following than the US Communist or US Socialist parties.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
PLUS - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT WHAT YOU DESCRIBE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL PROCESS - COMPROMISING, HORSE TRADING ON ISSUES, AND OTHERWISE "TRIANGULATING" ONE'S POSITIONS TO GAIN/MAINTAIN POWER. WITHOUT CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE/PRESSURE - THERE WOULD NOT BE THE NEED FOR POLITICAL COMPROMISE AND LIBERAL POSITIONS WOULD RULE THE DAY. WHAT YOU DECRY HAS MORE TO DO WITH OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE TENSION THAT EXISTS BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES AND LESS TO DO WITH LIBERALISM ITSELF.


All of the above changes were the actions of past Democrats, not modern-day ones. And the actions of past Democrats was not out of some inherent kind-heartedness, it was because Black and White radicals PUSHED them to pass such measures.



Well, EP... MBM feigned acknowledging how those things were "pushed" and acknowledged the "pacification" factor inherent in the quest to maintain White Supremacy. But he has failed to return to or even support his objection:
that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.

Hmmm... And note again how he said it was Noam Chomsky (as opposed to Pelosi or any such Democrat) who was that type of person. (Part that had to do with where the thread was at the time but, again, he has not returned to that premise/pretense.)
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Well, EP... MBM feigned acknowledging how those things were "pushed" and acknowledged the "pacification" factor inherent in the quest to maintain White Supremacy. But he has failed to return to or even support his objection:
that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.


Well, MBM is a Democrat (I think, from what personal info he's given me about his views), so I can understand that he would be partial to liberalism. Just like I being a Black radical would be partial to "left-wing" ideas. But, I always try to put fact above and before partisanship (you'll never see me being apologetic for the Nation of Islam's racial chauvanism or the despotism of some governments calling themselves "socialist" or "communist"). I'm hoping that MBM will do the same with being objective about liberalism. But he seems to be doing the same thing that some people here complain about happening all too frequently in the Black community: clinging to the Democrats for dear life and being afraid to part ways with them on any significant issue; even when they clearly don't show solidarity with us.

Malcolm X's prophecy has come true in many ways for the Black community: "The shrewd capitalists, the shrewd imperialists, knew that the only way people would run towards the fox (Johnson/Democrats) would be if you showed them the wolf (Goldwater/Republicans). So they created a ghastly alternative . . . And at the moment he (Johnson) had troops invading the Congo and South Vietnam."


quote:
Hmmm... And note again how he said it was Noam Chomsky (as opposed to Pelosi or any such Democrat) who was that type of person. (Part that had to do with where the thread was at the time but, again, he has not returned to that premise/pretense.)


Yep, Chomsky who is a "fringe" person (ie. minimal political power). Ted Kennedy was the most truly liberal person he listed with the Democrats, along with Chomsky who is not even a liberal but a libertarian communist/syndicalist.

Personally, being pragmatic as I am, I believe in siding with the Dems on some issues, but I side with whoever is closest to our cause on key issues (most often those closest tend to leftists). I believe we should side with those closest while feigning cooperation with those in power to milk their political prowess for all it's worth and then discard them when they're no longer useful. Once we have the power, then we unapologetically side with whoever is closer to our goals.

Unlike MBM and Alanzo, I believe in literally exploiting the Democrats, not allying with them as true friends, because their track record shows they are not true friends of the Black Community and underclasses in general.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

MBM, dude... UNDER THOSE DEMOCRATS... African-Americans and other Americans were sent to war because WHITE SUPREMACY (and WHITE FEARS) RULE.

But you can cite where those Democrats stood against the War In Iraq from the very beginning when their votes said otherwise. I mean, the least you can do is read...

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi: all pro-War.


An honest read of the political landscape around the war shows the following:

  • The Republican Bush administration fabricated intelligence to support going to war in Iraq. ALL of their claims - from imminence of threat, to yellow cake in Niger, to WMD's, to an Iraqi connection to 9/11, etc., etc., etc. were ALL lies.

  • Based upon the "data" that was presented to the world from Bush & Co. a number of Democrats supported the war. Do you honestly think that they would have supported the war with NO data - with NO threats?

    Beyond the above, and what you apparently miss, the Democrats WOULD NOT HAVE FABRICATED THE DATA and lied to America to go to war in Iraq. As Vox pointed out a few years ago, the neo-cons had Iraq in their cross-hairs 10+ years ago. They saw an opening and manufactured the case to execute the strategy that they had been planning all along.

    Unless you are inferring that the Democrats were supportive of the Neo-Con plan from the jumpstreet, then how would America be at war in Iraq now if Democrats had been in power? Confused
  • quote:
    Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

    Unlike MBM and Alanzo, I believe in literally exploiting the Democrats, not allying with them as true friends, because their track record shows they are not true friends of the Black Community and underclasses in general.


    lol

    link

    You're really funny - a freakin' broken record! Do you have any thoughts about how your radical alliance will actually do anything for African America? 15 Are you more interested in embracing an ideology that warms you over or are you more interested in making a difference in peoples' lives? How precisely are you going to "exploit" the Democrats?
    19
    quote:
    Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

    All of the above changes were the actions of past Democrats, not modern-day ones. And the actions of past Democrats was not out of some inherent kind-heartedness, it was because Black and White radicals PUSHED them to pass such measures.


    Now I see you are completely ignoring my posts since NOTHING in my post has ANYTHING to do with the past. bang

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    As I said before, under those Democrats:

  • Thousands of African American men and women would not be dead, maimed, or in harms way in Iraq now.

  • The government would not be wantonly tapping phones, reading emails, viewing internet behavior, investigating books you withdrew from the library, investigating your credit card purchases etc., etc. without a warrant or any other legal justification.

  • People would not be held without charges and without the benefit of legal representation in this country.

  • Affirmative action would not have been gutted.

  • The minimum wage would be higher.

  • All Americans would have comprehensive health insurance as opposed to 40 million having none now.

  • Public education would be better supported and better performing around the country.

  • The environment would take greater precendence. Our water and air and ground would be cleaner.

  • Gas prices would not be anywhere near where they are now.

  • Alito and Roberts would not be on the Supreme Court - thus potentially challenging all manner of laws which are in our benefit.

  • The middle class would not be squeezed in the way that it is now. There would be more people doing better in this country as opposed to less and the wealthy would be paying their fair share of our national tax burden.

  • National security would be taken seriously. Instead of diverting resources to a war of profit, an appropriate military/national security response would have been directed to eliminate/reduce the threat. We would have directed more resources to secure vulnerabilities like our ports and borders instead of extending ourself needlessly in Iraq.

  • America would have a saner policy toward Africa. We would actually have done something in Sudan and Congo instead of fomenting increased instability.

  • The Katrina disaster would have been taken more seriously - less black people would have died and more resources would have been directed there for rebuilding.

  • Without strong liberal opposition, Social Security - a program which keeps millions and millions of American seniors out of poverty - would have been severely compromised by being handed over to the greed and avarice of Wall Street via the Republican privitization plan.

  • If Democrats were in power you can be sure that the voter suppression measures that we saw all over the country - but particularly in Florida and Ohio - where African American votes were marginalized/eliminated - would not have occurred.

  • Gun deaths and crimes would be less in America than they are now as Democrats would limit the distribution of hand guns and assault rifles - which have no purpose but to kill people.

  • A woman's right to choose would be safer and more secure than it is now.

  • All adults would have equal rights under the law to marry as they see fit.

    PLUS - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT WHAT YOU DESCRIBE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL PROCESS - COMPROMISING, HORSE TRADING ON ISSUES, AND OTHERWISE "TRIANGULATING" ONE'S POSITIONS TO GAIN/MAINTAIN POWER. WITHOUT CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE/PRESSURE - THERE WOULD NOT BE THE NEED FOR POLITICAL COMPROMISE AND LIBERAL POSITIONS WOULD RULE THE DAY. WHAT YOU DECRY HAS MORE TO DO WITH OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE TENSION THAT EXISTS BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES AND LESS TO DO WITH LIBERALISM ITSELF.

    Perhaps the radicals that you love are really just idealists who prefer to live in the arena of ideas than pragmatists who would rather make a tangible difference in peoples' lives.


  • Which issue - precisely - was brought about by "past Democrats"? Katrina? Gay marriage? The Iraq War? Africa policy? Alito and Roberts? Gun control? Universal healthcare? Gas prices? Government spying? Global warming? which? Confused
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    lol

    link

    You're really funny - a freakin' broken record! Do you have any thoughts about how your radical alliance will actually do anything for African America? 15 Are you more interested in embracing an ideology that warms you over or are you more interested in making a difference in peoples' lives? How precisely are you going to "exploit" the Democrats?
    19


    I believe in making a difference in people's lives of course. But I don't believe that the Democrats goals will make the best impact on people's lives. I have a view similar to what blaqfist said:

    quote:
    Liberals= Pick Pocketers/Con-Artist, they steal so good you don't even know you been got'..

    Conservatives= Car Jackers/Bank Robbers; there is no playing nice w/ them. They just beat you over the head and take whatever it is you have that they want...


    Like Nmag said, I think the Dems' goal is pacification, not liberation.

    How could we practically exploit the Dems? One, we could support leaders other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. That's a start. Two we can vote for other parties when they fail to deliver for us.
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    An honest read of the political landscape around the war shows the following:

  • The Republican Bush administration fabricated intelligence to support going to war in Iraq. ALL of their claims - from imminence of threat, to yellow cake in Niger, to WMD's, to an Iraqi connection to 9/11, etc., etc., etc. were ALL lies.

  • Based upon the "data" that was presented to the world from Bush & Co. a number of Democrats supported the war. Do you honestly think that they would have supported the war with NO data - with NO threats?


  • Sorry, dude... You've already used your RHETORICAL QUESTION Allowance earlier. You will have to do more than state your belief to substantiate your belief as an argument (via the rhetorical question).

    Hmmm... Funny how now it's you whose all about the COULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE... as opposed to talking about what happened. But in a direct answer to your question: NO! I don't believe that the Democrats would have been against the War had they not been "tricked" by those dastardly demons (Bush & Co.) who hold all the power over all the critical thinking and intelligence capacities available to Democrats. (*eyes rolling*)

    No. I don't share your inexplicable (because you've yet to explain or substantiate it) faith in Democrats. And I say that while being firm in saying To Hell With The Republicans!

    But go ahead and let's see you return to that objection you wanted to make: that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.

    Is it your Article of Faith that those Democrats you named are such people? I'm trying to figure that out... WHY you haven't returned to that pretense of yours.

    quote:
    Unless you are inferring that the Democrats were supportive of the Neo-Con plan from the jumpstreet, then how would America be at war in Iraq now if Democrats had been in power?


    I'm "inferring" nothing. I'm referencing FACT! Either you believe the stuff you say about White Supremacy or you don't. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Noam Chomsky's work would hardly ever suggest that War For Empire, etc. is anything close to the sole province of CONservatives/Republicans. The history of American "imperial" adventures do not exclude Democrats. Democrats, too, are into that war thing.

    You can talk about the Project For A New American Century, etc. all you want but the fact remains the Democrats, out of White FEAR, out of a sense of White Supremacy, Revenge... being GULLIBLE AS HELL... whatever... The Democrats were on board.

    Needless to say, I'm not impressed with your fantasized "IF's"... There is something to be said for how easily them WHITE Liberal-Democrats were "DUPED" along with the White general population when African-Americans were always largely against the war, from the start. But you do have that BLIND FAITH thing working for you.

    You believe in something you can't prove. Ridiculous hypotheticals. Hmmm... Now what made African-Americans, generally, more skeptical than your beloved WHITE Democrats? I mean, this "they were tricked" argument just doesn't work. Black folks (generally) were not, despite being fed the same intelligence not to mention the number of things that ran counter of the Administration's claims.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

    But I don't believe that the Democrats goals will make the best impact on people's lives. I have a view similar to what blaqfist said:

    quote:
    Liberals= Pick Pocketers/Con-Artist, they steal so good you don't even know you been got'..

    Conservatives= Car Jackers/Bank Robbers; there is no playing nice w/ them. They just beat you over the head and take whatever it is you have that they want...


    You mentioned that you are a pragmatist. With that spirit in mind, how can you support any party other than the Democrats? Whatever apprehensions you (rightfully) may have about them, since our system is currently constructed as a two party one where liberals and conservatives are pitted against each other, what other choice do you have? It seems rather clear that you can either support the group which both offers the best national agenda for you or blocks the most damaging agenda. As currently configured, that's the Democrats.

    quote:
    Like Nmag said, I think the Dems' goal is pacification, not liberation.


    And, as I've said, "of course". No kidding. Duh. 15 It is nonsensical to even think that any party other than a purely African American one would even think about African American liberation. That said, I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything. 15
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    Sorry, dude... You've already used your RHETORICAL QUESTION Allowance earlier. You will have to do more than state your belief to substantiate your belief as an argument (via the rhetorical question).

    Hmmm... Funny how now it's you whose all about the COULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE... as opposed to talking about what happened. But in a direct answer to your question: NO! I don't believe that the Democrats would have been against the War had they not been "tricked" by those dastardly demons (Bush & Co.) who hold all the power over all the critical thinking and intelligence capacities available to Democrats. (*eyes rolling*)


    Since we have evidence that the neo-cons supported the Iraq War prior to Bush even coming in office, what evidence do you have that would lead a reasonable person to think that Democrats would have fomented that same war? Beyond that, since Clinton was in office for eight years prior to Bush, if Democrats would have initiated the war - why didn't they?

    You think the Dick Cheney - Halliburton connection is a mere coincidence do you? lol

    quote:
    No. I don't share your inexplicable (because you've yet to explain or substantiate it) faith in Democrats.


    Faith? First of all, no one has ever introduced the word "faith" to this discussion before. The question is about "difference" - which is an entirely different concept. Do you agree that the below post demonstrates difference or not?

    Originally posted by MBM:

    As I said before, under those Democrats:

  • Thousands of African American men and women would not be dead, maimed, or in harms way in Iraq now.

  • The government would not be wantonly tapping phones, reading emails, viewing internet behavior, investigating books you withdrew from the library, investigating your credit card purchases etc., etc. without a warrant or any other legal justification.

  • People would not be held without charges and without the benefit of legal representation in this country.

  • Affirmative action would not have been gutted.

  • The minimum wage would be higher.

  • All Americans would have comprehensive health insurance as opposed to 40 million having none now.

  • Public education would be better supported and better performing around the country.

  • The environment would take greater precendence. Our water and air and ground would be cleaner.

  • Gas prices would not be anywhere near where they are now.

  • Alito and Roberts would not be on the Supreme Court - thus potentially challenging all manner of laws which are in our benefit.

  • The middle class would not be squeezed in the way that it is now. There would be more people doing better in this country as opposed to less and the wealthy would be paying their fair share of our national tax burden.

  • National security would be taken seriously. Instead of diverting resources to a war of profit, an appropriate military/national security response would have been directed to eliminate/reduce the threat. We would have directed more resources to secure vulnerabilities like our ports and borders instead of extending ourself needlessly in Iraq.

  • America would have a saner policy toward Africa. We would actually have done something in Sudan and Congo instead of fomenting increased instability.

  • The Katrina disaster would have been taken more seriously - less black people would have died and more resources would have been directed there for rebuilding.

  • Without strong liberal opposition, Social Security - a program which keeps millions and millions of American seniors out of poverty - would have been severely compromised by being handed over to the greed and avarice of Wall Street via the Republican privitization plan.

  • If Democrats were in power you can be sure that the voter suppression measures that we saw all over the country - but particularly in Florida and Ohio - where African American votes were marginalized/eliminated - would not have occurred.

  • Gun deaths and crimes would be less in America than they are now as Democrats would limit the distribution of hand guns and assault rifles - which have no purpose but to kill people.

  • A woman's right to choose would be safer and more secure than it is now.

  • All adults would have equal rights under the law to marry as they see fit.


  • quote:
    But go ahead and let's see you return to that objection you wanted to make: that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.

    Is it your Article of Faith that those Democrats you named are such people? I'm trying to figure that out... WHY you haven't returned to that pretense of yours.


    Liberal politics - as you know - has been more about creating rights and opportunity for the masses than conservative ideology which has been squarely about limiting peoples' access. It's not a coincidence that liberals (Democrats at the time) championed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and even the Equal Rights Amendment. It's not a coincidence that liberals were the ones who supported the Civil Rights Movement - against diligent opposition from conservatives. As you'll remember, we are discussing "difference" here. It seems rather clear that that difference exists. Neverhteless, since we do not have a window into the minds of the elite in the party, it would seem reasonable to "conject" that a party that promotes policy that seeks to empower others with more rights has a fundamentally different worldview about people than one which seeks to do otherwise. Could those views be all about political strategy? Perhaps, but when that strategy becomes an overriding aspect of that party's identity, then at what point does strategy merge into ethos?

    That said, this point is completely irrelevant to this argument. It has nothing to do with if there is a difference between conservatives and liberals. The question doesn't seek to judge intent.

    quote:
    quote:
    Unless you are inferring that the Democrats were supportive of the Neo-Con plan from the jumpstreet, then how would America be at war in Iraq now if Democrats had been in power?


    I'm "inferring" nothing. I'm referencing FACT! Either you believe the stuff you say about White Supremacy or you don't. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Noam Chomsky's work would hardly ever suggest that War For Empire, etc. is anything close to the sole province of CONservatives/Republicans. The history of American "imperial" adventures do not exclude Democrats. Democrats, too, are into that war thing.


    Since you reference "fact", then you'll appreciate that the "facts" are that the Republicans lied to the world to start this war. Clinton could have started it. He didn't. That is a "fact". Bush & Co. created a fictionalized set of "intelligence" which Democrats - having no access to other, independent and contradictory evidence - supported. When in the past has the administration lied so blatantly to Congress and the world? Bush presented lies to COngress, the UN and the world and they all acted on that data. Absent independent data - what was Congress/America supposed to do? You may have forgotten that the CIA doesn't report to Congress, it reports to the president.

    quote:
    You can talk about the Project For A New American Century, etc. all you want but the fact remains the Democrats, out of White FEAR, out of a sense of White Supremacy, Revenge... being GULLIBLE AS HELL... whatever... The Democrats were on board.


    So what? If they were still on board after all the facts came out then I think your argument would have merit. Since they aren't, and many hardcore conservatives are still "on board" despite no evidence, then it seems to me that your effort to use the war as an illustration that there is no difference between liberals and conservatives is nonsensical.

    quote:
    Needless to say, I'm not impressed with your fantasized "IF's"... There is something to be said for how easily them WHITE Liberal-Democrats were "DUPED" along with the White general population when African-Americans were always largely against the war, from the start. But you do have that BLIND FAITH thing working for you.

    You believe in something you can't prove. Ridiculous hypotheticals. Hmmm... Now what made African-Americans, generally, more skeptical than your beloved WHITE Democrats? I mean, this "they were tricked" argument just doesn't work. Black folks (generally) were not, despite being fed the same intelligence not to mention the number of things that ran counter of the Administration's claims.


    Your argument infers that African Americans were against the war because they somehow 'saw through' the fabricated evidence. I think Africn America was against the war becuase they knew it would have a disproportionately high toll on African American men and women who would lose their lives and limbs in the war. It had nothing to do with evidence - unless you are suggesting that the black CIA produced counterveiling data which they published on the spook press! lol
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Since we have evidence that the neo-cons supported the Iraq War prior to Bush even coming in office, what evidence do you have that would lead a reasonable person to think that Democrats would have fomented that same war? Beyond that, since Clinton was in office for eight years prior to Bush, if Democrats would have initiated the war - why didn't they?


    FALSE QUESTION. What evidence do you have with all the No-Fly Zone missions, that Democrats (which is not synonomous with Clinton) would not have initiated the war?

    NONE!

    What we do know is that the Democrats co-signed...

    quote:
    President Clinton announced a new policy toward Iraq of "regime change." On October 31, 1998 the president signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act." The new Act appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox


    Hmmmm.... and we know the African-American political consensus on that issue shows how skepticism, even in the midst of being "tricked" (or whatever excuse you want to use) was indeed possible and capable of being strong.

    Sorry, I don't share your BLIND FAITH in Democrats or your desire to play the WHOSE THE BETTER WHITE MAN game.

    But you can tell me how the themes of REGIME CHANGE and bringing DEMOCRACY to Iraq shows some separation between so-called Democrats and Republicans, Neo-CON's included. (See quote above.)


    I REPEAT:
    Go ahead and let's see you return to that objection you wanted to make:
    that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    What evidence do you have with all the No-Fly Zone missions, that Democrats (which is not synonomous with Clinton) would not have initiated the war?


    The fact that they didn't!!! lol

    They had equal opportunity to do so - and they didn't. Nothing changed between the Clinton and Bush administrations with regard to the facts on the ground. What changed was the people in office.
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    You think the Dick Cheney - Halliburton connection is a mere coincidence do you? lol


    This is what you reduce yourself to when you can't return to your original objection and support it. That and this silliness:

    quote:
    Your argument infers that African Americans were against the war because they somehow 'saw through' the fabricated evidence. I think Africn America was against the war becuase they knew it would have a disproportionately high toll on African American men and women who would lose their lives and limbs in the war. It had nothing to do with evidence - unless you are suggesting that the black CIA produced counterveiling data which they published on the spook press!


    As stated, my argument says that there was reason to be SKETICAL. Nothing more, nothing less. My argument says that there is a reason why your beloved WHITE Democrats were less likely to be skeptical. That's the only inference I drew save that skepticism was indeed possible and who gives a damn why you think African-Americans were skeptical.

    That type of "we're going to be the ones making the sacrifices" hardly seem to effect White support for the war.

    NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!

    quote:
    If they were still on board after all the facts came out then I think your argument would have merit.


    You still haven't accounted for why they were so inclined to NOT be skeptical. Surely those Democrats would be sending the sons and daughters of their constituents to war so they had every reason to be skeptical.

    quote:
    As you'll remember, we are discussing "difference" here. It seems rather clear that that difference exists.


    And as you have been charged with... it's a discussion about what "differences" exists between the CURRENT set of Democrats and Republicans that's at issue.

    But go ahead and let's see you return to that objection you wanted to make:
    that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.

    You named some Democrats... Which one of them do you believe hold to this belief even as you claimed WHITE SUPREMACY RULES (with them/their party)?

    Upon what do you base that belief on (if you have it with respect to those Democrats)?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    You think the Dick Cheney - Halliburton connection is a mere coincidence do you? lol


    This is what you reduce yourself to when you can't return to your original objection and support it.


    YES. The fact that this administration had published it strategy in Iraq before hand and the fact that they had a real and tangible financial interest in prosecuting the war seems to me to be a rather clear DIFFERENCE that lead to their action there.

    Beyond that - are you just plain AFRAID to deal with the real qquestion here? As you are wont to do - you keep raising this irrelevant "objection" (whatever that means?). First, I've already answered it. Second - for the sake of getting to the point of this thread - I'll concede that that point was inane. Despite the fact that I've responded to it - I'll concede.

    Now what? Can you deal with the cetral issues of the thread or not? Confused

    quote:
    As stated, my argument says that there was reason to be SKETICAL.


    Who says no one was "skeptical"? Just because people voted for the war, what does that have to do with skepticism? Do you honestly believe that the Democratic leadership was not skeptical? lol

    Beyond that, much of the Democratic support was, no doubt, a function of political positioning. Conservatives have positioned liberals as soft on defense. Many voted for the war in an effort to inoculate themselves from that kind of political attack.

    Again - absent the give and take of the political process, there would be no reason to compromise.


    quote:
    quote:
    If they were still on board after all the facts came out then I think your argument would have merit.


    You still haven't accounted for why they were so inclined to NOT be skeptical.


    OK - so now I'm supposed to answer your questions before you even ask them? LOL You just introduced the "sketical" argument above. lol

    quote:
    Surely those Democrats would be sending the sons and daughters of their constituents to war so they had every reason to be skeptical.


    Since Bush was the sole source of intelligence leading up to the war, upon what basis would anyone have had the reasonable ability to doubt what was sold them? Why are you continuing to push this feeble argument? Isn't the true test where people stand once all of the facts are out? The facts are that MOST of America opposes the war. The facts are that America doesn't trust the president as it relates to the war. The facts are that Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the war while some hardcore Republicans still support it. Doesn't that demonstrate the DIFFERENCE which is the point of this thread in the first place?
    quote:
    And as you have been charged with... it's a discussion about what "differences" exists between the CURRENT set of Democrats and Republicans that's at issue.


    Here, I'll post the list yet again for you. You tell me how this does not prove that there is difference. WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO DOWN THE LIST ISSUE-BY-ISSUE AND REFUTE EACH POINT?

    Originally posted by MBM:

    As I said before, under those Democrats:

  • Thousands of African American men and women would not be dead, maimed, or in harms way in Iraq now.

  • The government would not be wantonly tapping phones, reading emails, viewing internet behavior, investigating books you withdrew from the library, investigating your credit card purchases etc., etc. without a warrant or any other legal justification.

  • People would not be held without charges and without the benefit of legal representation in this country.

  • Affirmative action would not have been gutted.

  • The minimum wage would be higher.

  • All Americans would have comprehensive health insurance as opposed to 40 million having none now.

  • Public education would be better supported and better performing around the country.

  • The environment would take greater precendence. Our water and air and ground would be cleaner.

  • Gas prices would not be anywhere near where they are now.

  • Alito and Roberts would not be on the Supreme Court - thus potentially challenging all manner of laws which are in our benefit.

  • The middle class would not be squeezed in the way that it is now. There would be more people doing better in this country as opposed to less and the wealthy would be paying their fair share of our national tax burden.

  • National security would be taken seriously. Instead of diverting resources to a war of profit, an appropriate military/national security response would have been directed to eliminate/reduce the threat. We would have directed more resources to secure vulnerabilities like our ports and borders instead of extending ourself needlessly in Iraq.

  • America would have a saner policy toward Africa. We would actually have done something in Sudan and Congo instead of fomenting increased instability.

  • The Katrina disaster would have been taken more seriously - less black people would have died and more resources would have been directed there for rebuilding.

  • Without strong liberal opposition, Social Security - a program which keeps millions and millions of American seniors out of poverty - would have been severely compromised by being handed over to the greed and avarice of Wall Street via the Republican privitization plan.

  • If Democrats were in power you can be sure that the voter suppression measures that we saw all over the country - but particularly in Florida and Ohio - where African American votes were marginalized/eliminated - would not have occurred.

  • Gun deaths and crimes would be less in America than they are now as Democrats would limit the distribution of hand guns and assault rifles - which have no purpose but to kill people.

  • A woman's right to choose would be safer and more secure than it is now.

  • All adults would have equal rights under the law to marry as they see fit.


  • I've provided 19 examples of how there is a difference between liberals and conservatives. I'd appreciate those who disagree that there exists a difference to either refute these 19 points or offer some other evidence to prove your point. Saying that "white folks don't love us" doesn't move the argument forward as I've already agreed and acknowledged this. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the difference between liberals and conservatives.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    You think the Dick Cheney - Halliburton connection is a mere coincidence do you? lol


    This is what you reduce yourself to when you can't return to your original objection and support it.


    YES. The fact that this administration had published it strategy in Iraq before hand and the fact that they had a real and tangible financial interest in prosecuting the war seems to me to be a rather clear DIFFERENCE that lead to their action there.

    Beyond that - are you just plain AFRAID to deal with the real qquestion here? As you are wont to do - you keep raising this irrelevant "objection" (whatever that means?). First, I've already answered it. Second - for the sake of getting to the point of this thread - I'll concede that that point was inane. Despite the fact that I've responded to it - I'll concede.

    Now what? Can you deal with the cetral issues of the thread or not? Confused

    quote:
    As stated, my argument says that there was reason to be SKETICAL.


    Who says no one was "skeptical"? Just because people voted for the war, what does that have to do with skepticism? Do you honestly believe that the Democratic leadership was not skeptical? lol

    Beyond that, much of the Democratic support was, no doubt, a function of political positioning. Conservatives have positioned liberals as soft on defense. Many voted for the war in an effort to inoculate themselves from that kind of political attack.

    Again - absent the give and take of the political process, there would be no reason to compromise.


    quote:
    quote:
    If they were still on board after all the facts came out then I think your argument would have merit.


    You still haven't accounted for why they were so inclined to NOT be skeptical.


    OK - so now I'm supposed to answer your questions before you even ask them? LOL You just introduced the "sketical" argument above. lol

    quote:
    Surely those Democrats would be sending the sons and daughters of their constituents to war so they had every reason to be skeptical.


    Since Bush was the sole source of intelligence leading up to the war, upon what basis would anyone have had the reasonable ability to doubt what was sold them? Why are you continuing to push this feeble argument? Isn't the true test where people stand once all of the facts are out? The facts are that MOST of America opposes the war. The facts are that America doesn't trust the president as it relates to the war. The facts are that Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the war while some hardcore Republicans still support it. Doesn't that demonstrate the DIFFERENCE which is the point of this thread in the first place?
    quote:
    And as you have been charged with... it's a discussion about what "differences" exists between the CURRENT set of Democrats and Republicans that's at issue.


    Here, I'll post the list yet again for you. You tell me how this does not prove that there is difference. WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO DOWN THE LIST ISSUE-BY-ISSUE AND REFUTE EACH POINT?

    Originally posted by MBM:

    As I said before, under those Democrats:

  • Thousands of African American men and women would not be dead, maimed, or in harms way in Iraq now.

  • The government would not be wantonly tapping phones, reading emails, viewing internet behavior, investigating books you withdrew from the library, investigating your credit card purchases etc., etc. without a warrant or any other legal justification.

  • People would not be held without charges and without the benefit of legal representation in this country.

  • Affirmative action would not have been gutted.

  • The minimum wage would be higher.

  • All Americans would have comprehensive health insurance as opposed to 40 million having none now.

  • Public education would be better supported and better performing around the country.

  • The environment would take greater precendence. Our water and air and ground would be cleaner.

  • Gas prices would not be anywhere near where they are now.

  • Alito and Roberts would not be on the Supreme Court - thus potentially challenging all manner of laws which are in our benefit.

  • The middle class would not be squeezed in the way that it is now. There would be more people doing better in this country as opposed to less and the wealthy would be paying their fair share of our national tax burden.

  • National security would be taken seriously. Instead of diverting resources to a war of profit, an appropriate military/national security response would have been directed to eliminate/reduce the threat. We would have directed more resources to secure vulnerabilities like our ports and borders instead of extending ourself needlessly in Iraq.

  • America would have a saner policy toward Africa. We would actually have done something in Sudan and Congo instead of fomenting increased instability.

  • The Katrina disaster would have been taken more seriously - less black people would have died and more resources would have been directed there for rebuilding.

  • Without strong liberal opposition, Social Security - a program which keeps millions and millions of American seniors out of poverty - would have been severely compromised by being handed over to the greed and avarice of Wall Street via the Republican privitization plan.

  • If Democrats were in power you can be sure that the voter suppression measures that we saw all over the country - but particularly in Florida and Ohio - where African American votes were marginalized/eliminated - would not have occurred.

  • Gun deaths and crimes would be less in America than they are now as Democrats would limit the distribution of hand guns and assault rifles - which have no purpose but to kill people.

  • A woman's right to choose would be safer and more secure than it is now.

  • All adults would have equal rights under the law to marry as they see fit.


  • I've provided 19 examples of how there is a difference between liberals and conservatives. I'd appreciate those who disagree that there exists a difference to either refute these 19 points or offer some other evidence to prove your point. Saying that "white folks don't love us" doesn't move the argument forward as I've already agreed and acknowledged this. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the difference between liberals and conservatives.




    MBM, with a1l due respect, this is insane... If George W. Bush is your measure of what a "conservative republican" is, then we're


    F*cked ... Smile


    This guy is not conservative.... He's INSANE...

    Many in his own party (Colin Powell now for example) don't want to claim him - including apparently his own father....

    AND THE DEMOCRATS STILL WENT ALONG.... Eek


    PS: privatization of Social Security was an issue that first appeared on the radar screen under Bill Clinton....

    PSS: Didn't the slaughter in Rwanda occur under Clinton? ... And all we got were marines in Somalia...what a mess...

    PSSS: Gas prices would be rising under anyone I suspect...
    No, I don't think so HB.

    quote:
    Originally posted by HonestBrother:
    Many in his own party (Colin Powell now for example) don't want to claim him - including apparently his own father....

    AND THE DEMOCRATS STILL WENT ALONG.... Eek

    The Democrats parted ways with Bush's foreign policy issues LONG before any Republicans did. Right now, those Republicans that are distancing themselves are only doing so to save their mid-term election hopes.


    quote:
    PS: privatization of Social Security was an issue that first appeared on the radar screen under Bill Clinton....

    I wasn't aware of that. But, even in that case... Clinton didn't go on a fourty-day state-hopping tour. And, the only reason Bush bothered with that tour is because he couldn't get enough votes in Congress (thanks to Democratic opposition).

    quote:
    PSSS: Gas prices would be rising under anyone I suspect...

    Not true. The only reason that prices are high is because the demand went up (that happens when you go to war) and the supply went down (that happens when you take one of the top five oil producing countries out of the market by blowing them up). hat
    Again I'm a voting political pragmatist (democratic voter speaking here) ... but nevertheless, pragmatic or not, it is simply not acceptable to keep one's head buried in the sand...

    That being said, it's time for some political perspective (i.e., time to see beyond the last 6 years)... MBM says

    quote:
    MBM:

    Perhaps the radicals that you love are really just idealists who prefer to live in the arena of ideas than pragmatists who would rather make a tangible difference in peoples' lives.



    The MOST cogent argument against your view comes about by viewing history... the ultra-conservative cabal that is currently running this country was considered NUTS 35 years ago... they are the radical fringe of the right wing...

    And you know what? They didn't "triangulate"... they didn't "compromise"... they didn't have any thing to do with any of this crap...

    They stuck to their ideas (deplorable as they were)... they organized, organized, organized... built up institutional infrastructure (media, think tanks, local political machines, etc.)... they were patient and COMMITTED as hell ... and now

    The * radical * right run the country...

    What is wrong with the left... the democratic left in particular... and the black democratic left most particularly of all.... that they believe that the way do get your agenda through is to give up on it??????

    Triangulating?... Remember last election when John Kerry said he'd support the war even knowing what he knows now???

    This below:

    quote:
    MBM:

    PLUS - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT WHAT YOU DESCRIBE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL PROCESS - COMPROMISING, HORSE TRADING ON ISSUES, AND OTHERWISE "TRIANGULATING" ONE'S POSITIONS TO GAIN/MAINTAIN POWER. WITHOUT CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE/PRESSURE - THERE WOULD NOT BE THE NEED FOR POLITICAL COMPROMISE AND LIBERAL POSITIONS WOULD RULE THE DAY.


    When the HELL did the * radical * right do any of this?

    Triangulating?.... You wanna know who triangulates?... White southern democrats - so called DLC New Democrats - who decided that they weren't so desperate that they needed Jesse Jackson's voters... and so they'd rather compete with Republicans for theirs ... and rake in corporate money as good as any Republican.... the very New Democrats whose institutional rise to power was in large part due to the desire to damp black relevance in Democratic politics...

    This bears repeating:

    quote:
    HonestBrother:

    MBM, with all due respect, this is insane... If George W. Bush is your measure of what a "conservative republican" is, then we're


    F*cked ... Smile


    This guy is not conservative.... He's INSANE...

    Many in his own party (Colin Powell now for example) don't want to claim him - including apparently his own father....


    Please let us not get into the habit of using this administration as the measure of "conservatism"....

    If we do this, we're only going to drift EVEN FURTHER TO THE RIGHT...

    quote:
    Black Viking:

    quote:
    HonestBrother
    PSSS: Gas prices would be rising under anyone I suspect...


    Not true. The only reason that prices are high is because the demand went up (that happens when you go to war) and the supply went down (that happens when you take one of the top five oil producing countries out of the market by blowing them up).


    I happen to believe in peak oil... Even the Department of Energy - the government for God's sake - estimates that we'll reach peak oil within the century ( a conservative estimate)... the least conservative estimate is 10 years... prices are going up because there's more demand on oil (and there would be with or without a war - the demand on oil must increase if you expect an ever expanding global economy) AND SIMULTANEOUSLY a dwindling supply of oil...

    arguably, we're in Iraq PRECISELY to corner the market on a dwindling - but crucial - resource...

    Prices will rise anyway... And they will continue to rise ... ending the war would only temporarily halt the trend in rising prices ...

    The only substantive way to address rising prices is to have a saner energy policy - and this - I admit - we might have had if Al Gore, for example, had been elected....

    John Kerry? ... I dunno... But I think it would have been business as usual under a lot of Dems...
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by HonestBrother:
    Again I'm a voting political pragmatist (democratic voter speaking here) ... but nevertheless, pragmatic or not, it is simply not acceptable to keep one's head buried in the sand...

    That being said, it's time for some political perspective (i.e., time to see beyond the last 6 years)... MBM says

    quote:
    MBM:

    Perhaps the radicals that you love are really just idealists who prefer to live in the arena of ideas than pragmatists who would rather make a tangible difference in peoples' lives.



    The MOST cogent argument against your view comes about by viewing history... the ultra-conservative cabal that is currently running this country was considered NUTS 35 years ago... they are the radical fringe of the right wing...

    And you know what? They didn't "triangulate"... they didn't "compromise"... they didn't have any thing to do with any of this crap...

    They stuck to their ideas (deplorable as they were)... they organized, organized, organized... built up institutional infrastructure (media, think tanks, local political machines, etc.)... they were patient and COMMITTED as hell ... and now

    The * radical * right run the country...

    What is wrong with the left... the democratic left in particular... and the black democratic left most particularly of all.... that they believe that the way do get your agenda through is to give up on it??????

    This below:

    quote:
    MBM:

    PLUS - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT WHAT YOU DESCRIBE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL PROCESS - COMPROMISING, HORSE TRADING ON ISSUES, AND OTHERWISE "TRIANGULATING" ONE'S POSITIONS TO GAIN/MAINTAIN POWER. WITHOUT CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE/PRESSURE - THERE WOULD NOT BE THE NEED FOR POLITICAL COMPROMISE AND LIBERAL POSITIONS WOULD RULE THE DAY.


    When the HELL did the * radical * right do any of this?

    Triangulating?.... You wanna know who triangulates?... White southern democrats - so called DLC New Democrats - who decided that they weren't so desperate that they needed Jesse Jackson's voters... and so they'd rather compete with Republicans for theirs ... and rake in corporate money as good as any Republican.... the very New Democrats whose institutional rise to power was in large part due to the desire to damp black relevance in Democratic politics...

    For the most part, I agree with this. But...

    quote:
    quote:
    This bears repeating:

    quote:
    HonestBrother:

    MBM, with a1l due respect, this is insane... If George W. Bush is your measure of what a "conservative republican" is, then we're


    F*cked ... Smile


    This guy is not conservative.... He's INSANE...

    Many in his own party (Colin Powell now for example) don't want to claim him - including apparently his own father....


    Please let us not get into the habit of using this administration as the measure of "conservatism"....

    If we do this, we're only going to drift EVEN FURTHER TO THE RIGHT...

    ...this doesn't seem to jive with the rest of what you've written.

    In what way is this bible-thumping, war-mongering, elitist administration NOT the best measure of conservatism?

    quote:
    Black Viking:

    quote:
    HonestBrother
    PSSS: Gas prices would be rising under anyone I suspect...


    Not true. The only reason that prices are high is because the demand went up (that happens when you go to war) and the supply went down (that happens when you take one of the top five oil producing countries out of the market by blowing them up).


    I happen to believe in peak oil... Even the Department of of Energy - the government for God's sake - estimates that we'll reach peak oil within the century ( a conservative estimate)... the least conservative estimate is 10 years...

    I agree.

    quote:
    prices are going up because there's more demand on oil (and there would be with or without a war - the demand on oil must increase if you expect an ever expanding global economy) AND SIMULTANEOUSLY a dwindling supply of oil...

    Absolutely not true. Wars cost oil HB. Something has to power the war machine, and they're definitely not using ethanol. The global economy is is still expanding, which as you said, is demanding more oil. This factor existing without a war going on would have us seeing a drastic difference in the cost of oil.

    If we weren't using oil to power the war machine, and Iraq was still producing oil to sell to Europe, our consumption would be much less and Europe wouldn't be competing for what we normally get almost in full from Saudi Arabia.

    * BV puts on conspiracy theory hat *

    Saudi Arabia planned and carried out 9/11 in order to start a war that would drive up consumption while at the same time driving a chief competitor out of the market.

    * BV takes off conspiracy theory hat *


    quote:
    arguably, we're in Iraq PRECISELY to corner the market on a dwindling - but crucial - resource...

    I agree.
    Chiming in:

    Well, I have to agree with HB that I suspect the oil prices would rise under any president. Maybe not by as much, but they would still rise. It's not just the War that's taking up so much oil. The reason for the rises in oil prices are:

    1) India and China are consuming a shit-load of oil along with Western countries.
    2) Mass pritivization allows privately-owned companies to charge an arm and a leg for oil.
    3) Oil is becoming more scarce, the earth is starting to run dry.
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Beyond that - are you just plain AFRAID to deal with the real qquestion here? As you are wont to do - you keep raising this irrelevant "objection" (whatever that means?). First, I've already answered it. Second - for the sake of getting to the point of this thread - I'll concede that that point was inane. Despite the fact that I've responded to it - I'll concede.

    Now what? Can you deal with the cetral issues of the thread or not? Confused


    By conceding, which you've done by default ever since you raised that "objection" (i.e. you saying "I disagree..."; aka "I object to that characterization", etc.), you say little in the way of distinguishing a substantive difference between the two parties.

    The historical fact remains that BOTH Democrats and Republicans wage war, no matter how much their methods differ. And it's particularly irresponsible to play Make-Believe and Hypothetical Wishful Thinking - aka The BETTER White Man game.

    Hmmm.... Democrats were not in office during 9/11 but you ask a question about what they would do in a POST 9/11 world under PRE 9/11 assumptions? Please...

    You listed John Kerry among your beloved Democrats. As HB reminds us... Kerry himself, the very Democrat who would have been in office said:

    "Yes, I would have voted for the authority [and would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction]. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

    So you used an appropriate word to describe your argument here... INANE!

    That's more than enough evidence... Somehow, the WHITE SUPREMACY that you feigned acknowledgement of seemed to escape your desire to paint Democrats As FRIENDS. Somehow the whole Geo-Political Dynamics also seemed to escape you. Your weird Article of Faith posing Democrats As FRIENDS caused those things, common sense and a correct reading of American War History to escape you. You were/are Blind To The FACTS.

    Oh but I guess John Kerry based on your baseless belief would have NOT gone to war... Just because you don't believe he would if he were president even when he's said the opposite.

    Talk about... lol
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    The historical fact remains that BOTH Democrats and Republicans wage war, no matter how much their methods differ.


    So what? How does this statement impact the question of the thread? If there is agreement on a variety of items but difference on meaningful others - than there is difference.

    Beyond that - you completely gut your argument when you acknowledge that their "methods differ". That's all that's being asked in the thread. Is there a difference? Thanks for answering! 16

    quote:
    And it's particularly irresponsible to play Make-Believe and Hypothetical Wishful Thinking - aka The BETTER White Man game.


    You just can't deal with the facts that Democrats had just as much opportunity to start a war with Iraq and they didn't. Sorry that busts your feeble little argument to shreds. ther

    quote:
    Hmmm.... Democrats were not in office during 9/11 but you ask a question about what they would do in a POST 9/11 world under PRE 9/11 assumptions? Please...


    LOL - so Nmaginate is reduced to regurgitating Republican talking points. What will we see from you next? laugh

    quote:


    lol Do you know what "authority" means? Did you ever read the news or watch some on TV? You're making a fool of yourself over and over again here. "Authority" was giving the president the power to make the decision to go to war. It was not a decision TO GO to war itself. Can you understand the nuance? Confused

    quote:
    That's more than enough evidence... Somehow, the WHITE SUPREMACY that you feigned acknowledgement of seemed to escape your desire to paint Democrats As FRIENDS.


    WHERE DID I SAY DEMOCRATS WERE "FRIENDS"? 20
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    You listed John Kerry among your beloved Democrats. As HB reminds us... Kerry himself, the very Democrat who would have been in office said:

    "Yes, I would have voted for the authority [and would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction]. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

    Nmag... belief that the president should have the authority to decide to go to war, doesn't concede that the decision to go to war was correct.
    For what its worth - John Kerry's statement about the war:

    "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

    In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."

    "I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take."

    "The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change."


    John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before The War
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    LOL - so Nmaginate is reduced to regurgitating Republican talking points. What will we see from you next? laugh



    Umm.... Yeah Roll Eyes

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    WHERE DID I SAY DEMOCRATS WERE "FRIENDS" 20


    Ummm... I spoke about your "desire to paint Democrats As FRIENDS" via your self-acknowledged INANE statement:
    that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.

    You "INFERRED" that there were/are Democrats (or mainstream Liberals) who fit that description. Such was your "objection" (Posted June 07, 2006 07:42 PM)

    quote:
    For what its worth - John Kerry's statement about the war:

    "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force..."



    Obviously, that's not worth much to you and your argument. That's Kerry basically saying he would GO TO WAR despite the No-Fly Zones, etc., etc., etc.

    And he said he would support that war... WHAT? In spite of the fact that this is what he knew or felt he knew:

    (That no attack from Saddam was) imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

    So, Kerry says in plain English that he would Go To War regardless of the threat level. His only quirk was HOW We Decide To Go To War. The issue was not Whether To Go To War Or Not.

    As such:
    Nmag... belief that the president should have the authority to decide to go to war, doesn't concede that the decision to go to war was correct.

    ... Rendered MOOT!

    As such:
    The Republican Bush administration fabricated intelligence to support going to war in Iraq. ALL of their claims - from imminence of threat, to yellow cake in Niger, to WMD's, to an Iraqi connection to 9/11, etc., etc., etc. were ALL lies.

    ... Rendered MOOT!
    (Kerry, as you quote his statement "BEFORE THE WAR", obviously didn't base his thoughts on the "fabricated" claims of the Bush Admin.)

    As such:
    how would America be at war in Iraq now if Democrats had been in power?

    ... Rendered MOOT!

    The very thing you quoted has Kerry saying he would GO TO WAR with a Multi-lateral Coalition. That's "HOW" we would be at war in Iraq if Kerry had his druthers. Nothing Kerry said suggested that he would categorically NOT Go To War. Indeed, Kerry suggested that he would GO TO WAR because he felt Saddam had to be "disarmed" anyway... And there was information out there from the Clinton years that Saddam had been effectively disarmed (of WMD's) anyway.

    So the "fabrication" angle is weak.

    "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war?" he added. "Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"

    Like I said...
    His only quirk was HOW We Decide To Go To War. The issue was not Whether To Go To War Or Not.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    lol Do you know what "authority" means?


    Do you know how to follow a link? And CONTEXT?

    As such... your argument is RENDERED MOOT!!
    Last edited {1}
    MBM, you and I both damned well know that Kerry's statement is in Clinton-speak... that is deliberately designed to be both for and against something at the same time... so he'd have plausible deniability either way... it amounts to the same shyt...

    quote:
    Black Viking:

    For the most part, I agree with this. But...

    quote:
    quote:
    This bears repeating:

    [QUOTE]HonestBrother:

    MBM, with all due respect, this is insane... If George W. Bush is your measure of what a "conservative Republican" is, then we're


    F*cked ... Smile


    This guy is not conservative.... He's INSANE...

    Many in his own party (Colin Powell now for example) don't want to claim him - including apparently his own father....


    Please let us not get into the habit of using this administration as the measure of "conservatism"....

    If we do this, we're only going to drift EVEN FURTHER TO THE RIGHT...

    ...this doesn't seem to jive with the rest of what you've written.

    In what way is this bible-thumping, war-mongering, elitist administration NOT the best measure of conservatism?




    The point is that by making a big to do about how much Democrats differ from the very CRAZIEST of right wing Republicans we're losing sight of how much they're indistinguishable from what used to be a conservative to moderate Republican... Richard Nixon was more liberal than a lot of these people...

    It's like defending a 1st degree murderer by pointing out how different he is from Jeffery Dahmer... and thereby setting a precedent which is dangerous precisely because it establishes a higher standard for what to consider a menace to society...
    quote:
    Originally posted by HonestBrother:

    It's like defending a 1st degree murderer by pointing out how different he is from Jeffery Dahmer... and thereby setting a precedent which is dangerous precisely because it establishes a higher standard for what to consider a menace to society...



    But you forget... A mere 1st Degree Murderer is "The Lesser Of Two Evils."

    I guess you can say, "There's A Million Ways To Die. Choose One!"
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    WHERE DID I SAY DEMOCRATS WERE "FRIENDS" 20


    Ummm... I spoke about your "desire to paint Democrats As FRIENDS" via your self-acknowledged INANE statement:
    that there are people who really do believe that "all men are created equal" etc.

    You "INFERRED" that there were/are Democrats (or mainstream Liberals) who fit that description. Such was your "objection" (Posted June 07, 2006 07:42 PM)


    You "spoke" incoherently - once again. The two statements are non sequiturs. There is no connection between them. Whether Democrats think of us a friends, lovers, or countrymen is absolutely irrelevant to the argument of whether there is a difference between liberals and conservatives. While I believe that the concept of equality is something that exists within some Democrats (particularly more so than in Republicans - the difference between the two being the topic of this thread), whether that statement is valid or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread or my argument. Beyond that, to presume that those words mean that they are our "friends" is ridiculous - particularly when - in this very thread - I have said otherwise.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    My ultimate point is that we live in a country that is dominated by white supremacy. Despite that, and however meek, there have been legal and other advances that have occurred here in America which have come solely via liberalism and against the constant fight of conservatism.

    Please don't misinterpret my comments to suggest that white liberals are necessarily our friends. Clearly society has been made by and for wealthy white men. Despite that, what crumbs we have garnered have come only from liberalism.


    As you used to say, "reading is fundamental". nono

    quote:

    That's Kerry basically saying he would GO TO WAR despite the No-Fly Zones, etc., etc., etc.


    What? Confused

    Kerry's own words are as ffollows:

    "It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change."

    What about the above is unclear?

    quote:
    And he said he would support that war... WHAT? In spite of the fact that this is what he knew or felt he knew:

    (That no attack from Saddam was) imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.


    Your 6th grade cutting and pasting in an effort to prove your point is absolutely pathetic. Why not paste the entire quote and suspend the dishonety?

    "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Whether Democrats think of us a friends, lovers, or countrymen is absolutely irrelevant to the argument of whether there is a difference between liberals and conservatives. While I believe that the concept of equality is something that exists within some Democrats (particularly more so than in Republicans - the difference between the two being the topic of this thread), whether that statement is valid or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread or my argument.


    Nope. That was the very basis of your argument per your noted "objection." You made that INANE idea "relevant" because that's was what you suggested was the "difference" and/or an element of the beliefs of Liberals that made them distinguishable and noteworthy.

    You argued that their those beliefs (in "equality" and to work in the "public interest" as the role of gov't) were things that made Liberals efforts genuine as opposed to being out of a desire, even a strict desire to "pacify" which, by definition, implicates the ultimate objective of said Liberals which was said to be essentially, ultimately "no different" from CONservatives who you were quick to note as doing things out of Political Expediency.

    Political Expediency... Pacification... Essentially the same thing.

    Now, as far as the "concept of equality"... Funny how you haven't identified any of the Democrats you listed as one of them. And, again, it was your "objection" that wanted to suggest that the "conception of equality" was an important thing to note. You inserted that and, after being challenged, you found it to be INANE despite the fact that you did indeed feel it was germane to your weak counterargument.

    quote:
    As you used to say, "reading is fundamental".


    As if it needs repeating, whether you intentionally wanted to "suggest" that WHITE Liberals are our friends, the fact that you raised what you had to acknowledge as an INANE objection (given how you apparently could only point out WHITE "Fringe" Radical/Leftist who held anything close to something you can comfortable call egalitarian views)... and INANE objection whereby you tried to claim that there were/are said WHITE Liberals who believe... Well, just like I said from the start...

    When you feel so comfortable asserting what the thinking of others represents, suggests, hints or "often devolves into"... You get no such privilege of having such disclaimers honored.

    And the DISHONESTY regarding Kerry comes from you. AFTER it was all said and done with... What did Kerry say?

    "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war?" he added. "Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"

    That doesn't suggest that Kerry would not have Gone To War. That clearly states that Kerry had qualms about "HOW WE WENT TO WAR." Not that we did. And, again, there is NOTHING in U.S. history that suggests that Democrats are less prone to launch or support (imperial) wars.

    Note again how Bill Clinton "called for REGIME CHANGE."

    So you have to find another Democrat and also explain the difference in sketicism from Blacks to Whites. That "disproportionality" thingy isn't enough to account for the gulf between Black and White opinion about the question of going to war.
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."



    Just as I said... Kerry did not categorically say he would not have or wouldn't Go To War.

    He preference was FOR WAR, albeit via a Multi-Lateral Effort, just as I noted. So he said, unequivocally that he was PRO-WAR. He did however say that he wasn't for a Unilateral War Effort... UNLESS.

    So he was indeed FOR WAR. That's what ENGLISH COMPREHENSION says. In fact, he even said he would be FOR a Unilateral War Effort if [1] the threat was imminent and [2] if the Multi-Lateral approach did not produce.

    So he was undoubtedly PRO-WAR. He only disagreed with Bush's tactics/approach. That's what he speech says. It certainly doesn't say he wouldn't go to war.

    So you'll have to find another angle. That speech doesn't help you. You'd be better served trying that "they were tricked" angle as you evade this (why everybody wasn't "tricked" via faulty information). But you know you'll find no solace in it either:

    My argument says that there is a reason why your beloved WHITE Democrats were less likely to be skeptical.
    ... You still haven't accounted for why they were so inclined to NOT be [as] skeptical [as African-Americans were]. Surely those Democrats would be sending the sons and daughters of their [WHITE] constituents to war. So they had every reason to be [as] skeptical.
    munch

    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Whether Democrats think of us a friends, lovers, or countrymen is absolutely irrelevant to the argument of whether there is a difference between liberals and conservatives. While I believe that the concept of equality is something that exists within some Democrats (particularly more so than in Republicans - the difference between the two being the topic of this thread), whether that statement is valid or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread or my argument.


    Nope. That was the very basis of your argument per your noted "objection." You made that INANE idea "relevant" because that's was what you suggested was the "difference" and/or an element of the beliefs of Liberals that made them distinguishable and noteworthy.


    ther

    Nmaginate – why continue this thrashing? Just move on to another thread.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Liberal politics - as you know - has been more about creating rights and opportunity for the masses than conservative ideology which has been squarely about limiting peoples' access. It's not a coincidence that liberals (Democrats at the time) championed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and even the Equal Rights Amendment. It's not a coincidence that liberals were the ones who supported the Civil Rights Movement - against diligent opposition from conservatives. As you'll remember, we are discussing "difference" here. It seems rather clear that that difference exists. Neverhteless, since we do not have a window into the minds of the elite in the party, it would seem reasonable to "conject" that a party that promotes policy that seeks to empower others with more rights has a fundamentally different worldview about people than one which seeks to do otherwise. Could those views be all about political strategy? Perhaps, but when that strategy becomes an overriding aspect of that party's identity, then at what point does strategy merge into ethos?

    That said, this point is completely irrelevant to this argument. It has nothing to do with if there is a difference between conservatives and liberals. The question doesn't seek to judge intent.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    I see NO connection between the argument that white America is not our friend and the argument that conservatives and liberals are no different.

    One can acknowledge that white America does not/cannot represent the interests of African America, AND that they are generally not our friends, without believing that there is no difference between liberals and conservatives.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    You mentioned that you are a pragmatist. With that spirit in mind, how can you support any party other than the Democrats? Whatever apprehensions you (rightfully) may have about them, since our system is currently constructed as a two party one where liberals and conservatives are pitted against each other, what other choice do you have? It seems rather clear that you can either support the group which both offers the best national agenda for you or blocks the most damaging agenda. As currently configured, that's the Democrats.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    You argued that their those beliefs (in "equality" and to work in the "public interest" as the role of gov't) were things that made Liberals efforts genuine as opposed to being out of a desire, even a strict desire to "pacify" which, by definition, implicates the ultimate objective of said Liberals which was said to be essentially, ultimately "no different" from CONservatives who you were quick to note as doing things out of Political Expediency.



    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Furthermore, one can acknowledge that white America is a constant source of tension pulling against our aspirations for liberty and freedom while also clearly understanding that to get shit done in this country, we have to 'play the game'.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Again - you miss the point entirely if you focus on whether white liberals are in love with black people. No one believes that they are. Beyond that I see no relevance between that point and anything relating to black progress in America. Despite that, though, liberalism is (at least in part) about expanding rights and opportunties; it is an inherently populist ideology which encompasses a reality which is FAR more favorable than the conservative one. Within that platform, it is clear that the most effective tools can be found for African America to do critically important things like provide better schools for our kids, secure comprehensive healthcare for our people, boost the minimum wage, protect the environment, guard our civil rights, keep us out of profit-driven wars, etc.


    R.I.F.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    So he said, unequivocally that he was PRO-WAR.


    OK - you get the Chuck Wepner award for self-flagellation! lol

    In about 5th grade one learns what a _conditional statement_ is. I guess you missed that lesson, huh? Let's dissect the statement shall we?

    "I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

    Those words in bold provide _conditions_ upon which Kerry's support was offered. To spell it out for you, he would have supported war IF the president had exhausted all diplomatic options. That means that if the president had not exhausted all diplomatic options that he would NOT be for war. Furthermore, he would not support unilateral action UNLESS the threat was imminent and there was no possibility of multilateral support. Since there was never proven to be any semblence of imminence and since furthermore there was never constituted any credible multi-lateral effort - what conclusion does that lead most rational observers to come to about Kerry's position on the war?

    BEYOND THAT, WHO CARES? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF THIS THREAD? John Kerry has been one of Bush's most outspoken critics of the war effort. That fact alone demonstrates the DIFFERENCE between liberals and conservatives that this entire thread is about.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    When you feel so comfortable asserting what the thinking of others represents, suggests, hints or "often devolves into"... You get no such privilege of having such disclaimers honored.





    From June 07, 2006 08:27 PM
    quote:
    If noting, as EP did, that White Supremacy RULES and is the ultimate agenda of both parties/ideologies (i.e. an agenda where neither are "our friends" - save for when it's convenient) somehow seems to suggest some type of defeatism, then doesn't the idea of noting that "Liberalism has done this for us in the past" suggest what EP is calling into question? That LIBERALS are not "our friends"?


    ...I really don't see what the problem is here and, again, if there is room to say that "defeatism" is amiss then the hand can point the other way as well.


    Again, you get no such privilege for disclaimers. Privileges or allowances you refuse to give others.

    So it's clear that your perspective on Democrats/Liberals "often devolves into" trying to paint them as "our friends." Which is why you said THE INANE.

    So, yes. You wanted to abort that line of rhetoric, that argument of yours because you were conscious of how you were "devolving" into trying to establish that very INANE position.

    Now what did you say about Lincoln?
    And how come that "I don't care about motivation" logic doesn't extend across the board with you? (See your comments about Nixon and "political expediency" - i.e. you stipulating to "motivation.")


    Talk about thrashings...
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    From June 07, 2006 08:27 PM
    [QUOTE] If noting, as EP did, that White Supremacy RULES and is the ultimate agenda of both parties/ideologies (i.e. an agenda where neither are "our friends" - save for when it's convenient) somehow seems to suggest some type of defeatism, then doesn't the idea of noting that "Liberalism has done this for us in the past" suggest what EP is calling into question? That LIBERALS are not "our friends"?


    You're asking me to defend YOUR quote??? laugh
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    So it's clear that your perspective on Democrats/Liberals "often devolves into" trying to paint them as "our friends."


    You're a master at cutting and pasting. Cut and paste a post or two to support your assertion. If you can't - then stop beating your ahead against the wall. You're embarassing yourself!
    ther


    munch

    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Whether Democrats think of us a friends, lovers, or countrymen is absolutely irrelevant to the argument of whether there is a difference between liberals and conservatives. While I believe that the concept of equality is something that exists within some Democrats (particularly more so than in Republicans - the difference between the two being the topic of this thread), whether that statement is valid or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread or my argument.


    Nope. That was the very basis of your argument per your noted "objection." You made that INANE idea "relevant" because that's was what you suggested was the "difference" and/or an element of the beliefs of Liberals that made them distinguishable and noteworthy.


    ther

    Nmaginate – why continue this thrashing? Just move on to another thread.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Liberal politics - as you know - has been more about creating rights and opportunity for the masses than conservative ideology which has been squarely about limiting peoples' access. It's not a coincidence that liberals (Democrats at the time) championed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and even the Equal Rights Amendment. It's not a coincidence that liberals were the ones who supported the Civil Rights Movement - against diligent opposition from conservatives. As you'll remember, we are discussing "difference" here. It seems rather clear that that difference exists. Neverhteless, since we do not have a window into the minds of the elite in the party, it would seem reasonable to "conject" that a party that promotes policy that seeks to empower others with more rights has a fundamentally different worldview about people than one which seeks to do otherwise. Could those views be all about political strategy? Perhaps, but when that strategy becomes an overriding aspect of that party's identity, then at what point does strategy merge into ethos?

    That said, this point is completely irrelevant to this argument. It has nothing to do with if there is a difference between conservatives and liberals. The question doesn't seek to judge intent.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    I see NO connection between the argument that white America is not our friend and the argument that conservatives and liberals are no different.

    One can acknowledge that white America does not/cannot represent the interests of African America, AND that they are generally not our friends, without believing that there is no difference between liberals and conservatives.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    You mentioned that you are a pragmatist. With that spirit in mind, how can you support any party other than the Democrats? Whatever apprehensions you (rightfully) may have about them, since our system is currently constructed as a two party one where liberals and conservatives are pitted against each other, what other choice do you have? It seems rather clear that you can either support the group which both offers the best national agenda for you or blocks the most damaging agenda. As currently configured, that's the Democrats.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:

    You argued that their those beliefs (in "equality" and to work in the "public interest" as the role of gov't) were things that made Liberals efforts genuine as opposed to being out of a desire, even a strict desire to "pacify" which, by definition, implicates the ultimate objective of said Liberals which was said to be essentially, ultimately "no different" from CONservatives who you were quick to note as doing things out of Political Expediency.



    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Furthermore, one can acknowledge that white America is a constant source of tension pulling against our aspirations for liberty and freedom while also clearly understanding that to get shit done in this country, we have to 'play the game'.


    R.I.F.

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Again - you miss the point entirely if you focus on whether white liberals are in love with black people. No one believes that they are. Beyond that I see no relevance between that point and anything relating to black progress in America. Despite that, though, liberalism is (at least in part) about expanding rights and opportunties; it is an inherently populist ideology which encompasses a reality which is FAR more favorable than the conservative one. Within that platform, it is clear that the most effective tools can be found for African America to do critically important things like provide better schools for our kids, secure comprehensive healthcare for our people, boost the minimum wage, protect the environment, guard our civil rights, keep us out of profit-driven wars, etc.


    R.I.F.
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    BEYOND THAT, WHO CARES? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF THIS THREAD?



    Again, you inserted and made this something important to your argument with your weak line of rhetorical questioning...

    quote:
    John Kerry has been one of Bush's most outspoken critics of the war effort. That fact alone demonstrates the DIFFERENCE between liberals and conservatives that this entire thread is about.


    You can read:
    That doesn't suggest that Kerry would not have Gone To War. That clearly states that Kerry had qualms about "HOW WE WENT TO WAR." Not that we did. And, again, there is NOTHING in U.S. history that suggests that Democrats are less prone to launch or support (imperial) wars.



    Beyond that, your curious conflation was noticed and you did not address how you bastardized one of the very things you're keen in observing:

    quote:
    Anyway... Is Democrat suppose to be synonomous with Liberal? Is that the way you see it historically, as well?

    Of course not. So why consider today's Democrats as if they are Radical Republicans pushing forth a new "liberal" agenda? Just like the historical shift in the parties have been noted before (mostly when modern day CONservatives try to pretend like they are 'The Party Of Lincoln') then it is only reasonable to consider or examine the parties today from that same perspective that NEITHER is locked into This Left or That Right.

    The Democratic Party, simply, is not the same as it was...


    But back to how you gets no special privileges:

    quote:
    But the "I'm not arguing..." principle did not give you pause from suggesting that EP's statement lends to "defeatism." Something that, while you said it was not something you charged EP with... it was something you decided to say, regardless. So, naturally, the counterargument is that you're trying to suggest, ever so slightly, that Liberals are "more friendly" even if it's among two generally "unfriendly" groups.

    ...Like I said, if you get the liberty of painting EP's remarks with your preconceived notion about what those type of sentiments usually suggest then that can go both ways. There are plenty of people, in our opinions, who will just stick with Democrats out of Undeserved Loyalty...

    So, just like you hear "defeatism" in EP's remarks, what often is communicated in your idea is Stick With The Democrats DESPITE the current, present-day resume that continues to deepen the sentiments that We Are Taken For Granted.


    But the ultimate THRASHING is the self-inflicted one of yours:

    quote:
    How about get active, organize, participate, vote, run for office, contribute to candidates that you support, etc. In sum - advocate for your/our interests.


    Please pin-point where this is even relevant.

    "I typically reject these types of arguments out of hand because they lead some to think that they shouldn't even bother to participate in trying to make society better."

    Hmmm.... Exactly where did you detect a spirit of non-participation and a sense of resignation that EP, e.g., felt like he "shouldn't even bother trying to make society better?" See... this whole thing from you is based on a NON-ARGUMENT. A NON-POINT that you just casually assigned (to EP) while trying to reserve some special privilege for yourself that made what "some" would be lead to think when they hear your curious views about Democrats (how you've conflated the terms Liberal and Democrat as if they are one in the same, when you've argued elsewhere that they are not - or that Republicanism, historically, wasn't synonomous with Conservativisms) as something out-of-play while you insisted on emphasizing what YOU thought EP's views "often devolves into" as an important consideration regardless of what EP was and was not arguing.

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×