Why does the left view themselves as idealistic eliteist

well, you are not, in fact, 'calling it as it is', you are calling it as you see it. And I shudder to think that anyone's ideas have the power to destroy a nation that has survived over 200 years so far. 911 was no way tied to ACLU, except in broad stroked conjecture and loose association of historical facts that are 'probably' related in your opinion.

Sheehan is doing what she believes in, and she is protesting a war she does not. She is not protesting democracy in the middle east - and the war in iraq was not waged to save millions of lives... all of that is your opinion. And you don't know that the war will stop a Jihad any more than you know if it will start one - you are just using it to discredit her. What you don't see is that all the wild accusations of her motives is what is fueling the media fire. Because nobody from the right opinion can look at it, shrug their shoulders, and say 'she's doing what she believes in, just let her be.' Instead, you have to attempt to demonize her and create movites - dig into her past, and point out faults that nobody really cares about.

It's just typical rightwing tactics.

If you don't like the ACLU, blame 911 on them... you can also use 911 as an excuse of why not to elect democrats, too. In fact, it's a catch all - just throw it at anything politicial that you don't like.

If you don't like Sheehan, talk about how she 'doesn't remember', like the rightwingers who throw it in the face of everything they don't like... they remember. And, by god, if you don't agree with them, 911 is your fault, too.

 

Here is something that Rick can get his teeth into and give us some well thought out reasons for some of the names and party of members found on this membership rooster. Any surprises?

http://www.sovereignty.net/center/socialists.htm

 

interesting indeed! Good for them - personally, I think socialism is a bunch of BS, but I have nothing against those who think otherwise. I see no real damage being done.

To reference another thread in this forum, however, I wonder if we are doomed for a centralized economy in the face of less and less educated population available to do their part.

 

Ok Rick so you have no problem with an organization that was founded with Soviet Union backing. You have no problem with an organization that was founded by members of communist party and who wrote in their own books that their goal was to overthrow Democracy. You have no problem with the former head of the ACLU stating that he felt that people could not be trusted to make decisions with voting. You have no problem with an organization that is allied with terrorist groups that have openly attacked and killed Christians and Jews for being Christians and Jews.

and you call me right wing for not liking an organization that wants to destroy our country.

 

Well, just to change gears a bit and bring back the original topic of the thread; I, nor anyone that I know, that consider themselves left of center, have ever thought of themselves as idealistic elitists. And I’m CERTAIN that the Right doesn’t think of themselves as idealistic elitists. Nobody ever labels the Right as idealistic elitists. I mean it would be just silly to even try and call the Right a bunch of idealistic elitists. They definitely are NOT idealistic elitists. No idealistic elitism there. No sir! :0

........................right?

 

Andy, after this thread and some of the others before it, I hope we can still get along on the subject of numismatics - but it does not appear that we see eye to eye on any other topic.

I do think you are rightwing - far more than you admit. I have watched 'the right' use 9/11 as a universal tool to win position. I have seen 'the right' associate things they don't like with terrorists. Just like years ago, 'the right' associated them with communists.

It does make me mad... I have tried, many times, to just not even come into this area of Coin Talk anymore, but I just keep letting myself open these threads - then I feel obligated to respond with my opinions.

If people don't like muslims, just say you don't like them, and be done with it. If people don't like the ACLU or Sheehan, just say you don't like them - you don't agree with them - whatever... be done with it. Because when it comes to the justifications for hatred, it all boils down to excuses for fear... Fear that other people's opinions might become popular. Fear that the US will not condemn thoughts that challenge our country, and so forth.

With this post, I really hope to absent myself from this discussion board - you will find me, hopefully, in other areas, talking about coins.

 

Andy you really sound like that O'Rielly guy from Fox with the ACLU thing. The ACLU bashers really are not considering the fact their rights may someday be trampled. It is as if you completely missed the best part of being American (the rights of the minority). It is odd that you think you are immune from oppression.

 

andy "Now let us look at what she is against.

Right now Iraq is in the process, it will be a long one, with creating a democracy.

This democracy if takes root may spread thru out the middle east.
Which in turn means we may avoid a total Jihad conflict which would be a massive World War III complete with nukes being exploded in our cities.

So why is Cindy so bent on slurring and ending our efforts to bring democracy to the middle east and avoid the death of hundreds of millions?"

heres the problems as i see it with your logic on this one point. you have said in other post(not in exact words)that muslims as a whole as does anyone one who follows the qur'an wish death to americans, correct? well if and when there is a democracy in the middle east wouldnt that just be a massive voting group that hates us for being americans? how is giving them the right to vote going to change the fact that they hate us?. will they have to rewrite the quran and add in that the devil of the west gave them freedom and we should no longer hate them. i dont see that happening.

well just somthing that ran through my head aas i was reading your post.

 

Rambozo, the whole point of the democracy thing is two fold. One it would make life better for the people who live in those nations but from a national safeguard point it would give competition to the mind control of Islam. Right now Islam is the only game in town over in most of the middle east. 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. Once democracry takes root and women have real rights they are not going to accept to be treated as property and baby making machines. Roughly speaking, that is half of the population right there. Then there are the second, third and fourth generations who would grow up in societies that become more and more democratic and they are going to like their freedoms and they will not tolerate the complete control of the muslim clerics and in effect become muslims who are muslims but who question the koran instead of following it blindly and perhaps over time would cease to be islamic altogether.

Summary: the more democracy in the middle east the less strength the Koran would hold over the people.

 

Ok. So I posted material on a couple of threads that was based upon facts from a variety of sources and I am called a racist, a klansman, and a member of the right.

I think my point of the left wing thinking of themselves as idealistic elitists was made. They did not defend their positions with facts but reacted by attacking me as a person instead

I guess that is what happens when one does not follow "political correctness".

 

Andy I am not calling you anything it is just that you seem to miss the point that if we do not defend the rights of the worst of us we all lose our rights. Who said I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. I think it was one of the founding fathers (maybe John Jays?)

 

andy "Summary: the more democracy in the middle east the less strength the Koran would hold over the people."

why in the world would these people open their arms to a method of contorl(government) that underminds their religion.especially if it is given to them by the enemy of that religion. which will ask them all this question are they iraqi first or muslim.

second democracy dosnt mean that the women will have any extra rights.how long did this country go before giving women right to property and the right to vote.
also why is it that the amish women are no diffrent than the iraqi women, in what they put up with in the name of faith, but no one says how wrong the amish men are for treating them like that.

and blind faith is what any religion works on and not questiong it.



third.dont think im bashing in any way.i like alot of your anwsers(even if i dont agree with some of them ) and thats why i ask alot of questions.

 

and holy crow it almost done with page 9 of this thread.

 

"why in the world would these people open their arms to a method of contol(government) that underminds their religion.especially if it is given to them by the enemy of that religion. which will ask them all this question are they iraqi first or muslim".
second democracy dosnt mean that the women will have any extra rights.how long did this country go before giving women right to property and the right to vote." rambozo


Thoughtful question:
The leftist media knows that Democracy is an evolution and takes time and sometimes generations to grow. Your use of our own nation state is a good example of that.

That is why the media is always trying to put a time table on our "influence" with bringing democracy to that region. Those time table questions in themselves states that we need to pull out or should have pulled out by now.

Most people I think would agree that there is no way democracy could take hold in Iraq without the US military overseeing it. Now for those who would say that in itself is undemocratic all I have to do is point to Japan and Germany and ask you "how long were our troops over there and for how many generations" The question tells you a long time and still are to a much lesser effect for a varied of reasons now then in 1945-6 which is why the talk of a pull out. In the case of Japan it is said that Gen. Doulgas McArthur wrote Japans consitution himself.

Why would they embrace democracy. They will not for the first generation or so. First they would take a forced taste of it and then over time they will be consuming it. The big trick is to get the women the right to vote. We have done that already in areas. The next thing is we have to press that the democracy is not based upon Islamic Law or arab culture. We can not allow the men the right to kill their daughters or wifes for disobeying them or shaming them. Once this is done women can feel empowered and would not put up with being property anymore. The success will depend on women's rights and reaching the future generations.

Now what I am saying is not orginal thoughts. These thoughts have been expressed by high ranking pentagon officers at various think thank conferences, at policy conferences and once in a blue moon can be viewed on C-Span.

Now why does C-Span show hundreds of hours of anti-american and for the most part not even american citizens make speeches and only a glimse of the pentagon officers think-tank/policy conferences which have an open door policy to the media?

Note:The think-tank/policy conferences are not the briefings that are shown on TV to a room of reporters. They are lectures that lay out a path of thought and reasoning and then are assessed for how to maximize the potential of success.

Now instead of tearing down our efforts in the middle east. Wouldn't it be better if
we had more thoughts on how to improve our plan of action.

I myself am disappoint in Bush's half measures.