jack, the man himself called it a mandate. All kinds of news people are calling it a mandate.
However, if one pays attention to the way it is being used, it becomes clear that very few of the people using the word understand what it means.
Hey, I have a better idea. Why don’t I read whatever the fuck I want, evaluate it critically, form my own goddamned opinions, and then you can decide whether I’m anti-American or not based on what I say and do rather than what I read.
If I said that everyone who reads “Treason” was a knuckle-dragging oppressive troglodyte you and Bricker and who knows who else would happily (and correctly) point it out as another example of how the left is just so gosh-darned mean. If you’re so bound and determined to judge how much I support America, at least have the balls to judge me on my own merits.
And if the GOP had held on to this sort of “in your heart you know we’re right and we won’t change” philosophy after the Goldwater debacle in '64, we would have had a long unbroken line of Democratic presidents after LBJ.
Aw goddam contrary, Jack. Most students of “movement” conservativism say that that’s precisely what happened, with the “Western” hard-liner conservatives wresting power from the “eastern” conservative “elitists”, culminating in the triumph of Reagan. The moderate conservatism of the Rockefeller types is just about sunk.
Ah, Goldwater in '64. When LBJ was the “peace” candidate…
Fuck it, let’s just set up guillotines in Farragut Square, Lafayette Park, and The Mall and let the Justice of the the Republic be done!
Monsieur Marat, a M’selle Corday to see you…
I believe elucidator has forgotten one of our more illustrious Presidents, fits in somewhere between LBJ and Reagan, fella name of Nixon. Somewhat to the left of Goldwater. And even more to the left of GWB.
I’m digging in my heels and standing my ground.
Kerry was hardly a “Goldwater” of the left. Goldwater got 38% of the vote to Johnsons 61%. A margin of victory of 22%. Compare this to Bush (51%) and Kerry (48%). A 3% margin of victory. Hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
Stoid, you still looking for people to post examples of your radical politics? Try these:
How 'bout the environment?
This:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=901547&postcount=24
And this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=880702&postcount=1
And this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=977888&postcount=10
And this one:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2533105&postcount=1
Apparently property rights are anathema to you to, too:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=973746&postcount=78
How about your rabid feminist stance? This single post is a good example.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2247132&postcount=1
Here’s a fun one. Let’s make the president (as long as he’s a democrat, of course) above the law.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=1195193&postcount=45
Here’s one that’s not so fun. “All in a day’s work?” What the fuck?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=1196818&postcount=56
Not enough? How 'about your own fucking admission of your pride in holding “the most radical view possible.”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=974093&postcount=97
Ooooo…Unclebeer’s got issues with the Stoid! Betcha that took a chunk out of your day.
And I don’t think any of it really qualifies me as in any way radical in my politics. Especially my feelings about the environment. You certainly didn’t see me applauding Earth First!, now did you?
My feminism is also not radical. Andrew Dworkin and Catherine Mckinnon are radical, and it is that faction that has managed to make us believe that is it empowering to women to infantilize them.
In any case, you have failed to show that I agree with or support any kind of radical politics. Liberal, definitely. Radical, no.
Um…Stoid? He quoted you as saying you were “happy to be the hypocritcal Angeleno who holds the most radical view possible.”
If believing that Alaskans cannot own their land is not radical, perhaps you could share an example of a radical view of land ownership.
And Bill H. is exactly right. See UncleBeer’s post # 69 in this thread. In all of the links to Stoid’s posts, there’s nary a fact to be found in any of them.
No, silly, Stoid voted for being a radical, before she voted against it.
Which, of course, might have been why he picked them? What was the last milroyjit post that was anything other than personal ankle-biting?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I infer from this that you suggest that the lefties should put aside their principles and get on board with this fag-bashing thing because apparently its quite popular. If this is not what you are implying here, can you please explain what you meant? Thanks.
“…if there is such a place”? To the extent that almost none of the world’s countries outside of the US form part of the Coalition of the Willing, shouldn’t have too much trouble finding one.
10 posts out of 6000. Yep, that proves everything. :rolleyes:
Where to begin… first off, a lot of people who are American citizens have an honest (and I would argue rational) desire to be respected around the world. As such, apologizing for what they view as the wrong decisions of their countrymen seems a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
To move on.
Loyal Americans take care of their differences among themselves? Am I to understand that correctly, you used the word loyal, and meant it? Surely you are not implying that someone is disloyal-as-an-American if they believe it is right to apologize rather than keeping it ‘in the family?’ Why on earth can’t free American citizens decide to do whatever they want as long as they do not harm persons or property? If an American citizen believes that, oh, say, France should be more involved in our country’s affairs, who are you to call him disloyal? Or is one socio-political ideology now the only one considered loyal?
(By the way, I’m not a democrat or a republican, but phrases like ‘loyal American’ are why nobody who talks like that or accepts the endorsement of someone who does will ever get my vote)
Now, obviously, some of your fellow American citizens belive, strongly, that we’ve made a mistake. They believe that this mistake is so serious that they need to apologize for it. Why on earth should we not apologize for our democratic decisions? If we voted to make religion official and ban evolution, would the rational/scientific members of the American citizenry be required, out of ‘loyalty’, not to distance themselves from their wacko-fundie countrymen?
First, it is a very reasonable/rational fear which many Americans have: the global policy and rhetoric of George W. Bush will increase recruits to terrorist organizations and, untimately, have the effect of making us more likely to suffer another catastrophic attack. To someone, say, living in Blue New York, there may very well be a bit of personal fear.
Kansans scared of terrorism, (for whatever reason they possibly were scared of being hit…) have now made probable that people who are are in cities like NYC or DC are now more likely to be attacked. I can understand how that might bring with it some fear and/or worry. “please don’t bomb ____” is, in my mind, a perfectly valid reaction to feeling that your country is heading on a path towards certain danger. It’s the “OH FUCK!” response.
And, again, loyal Americans want to see what is best for America and themselves, and as such, maybe some even feel that instead of viewing it as some pissing contest where we are either prostrate to or bombing the fuck out of terrorists, maybe there is another more ‘nuanced’ answer.
Maybe, just maybe, Americans can speak their minds and be loyal at the same time?
Is Alaska a country, Bricker? Why no, it isn’t. If Alaska gets drilled, it won’t be Alaskans drilling their own backyards, don’t be dishonest.
And read the whole thread if you are interested in the argument, it’s all there, I’m not going to redo it.