I give the guy the benefit of the doubt. How can you write all those condolence messages and not be changed? He wrote to everybody that lost a loved one, which is more than Rumsfeld did. He attend funerals of American dead, which is more than Bush did. He may have been a strident supporter of the war and he may still be in favor of many things that I oppose, but I applaud him for having the integrity to see his own mistake and to stand up for what he now believes to be true.
Oops, sorry Libera. Brain got ahead of my fingers.
SHIT!!!
L. i. b. e. r. a. l.
There.
Sheesh…
Yes, the lack of a conscience just as the Scarecrow running our country is missing a brain.
I figure that’s from all the bullshit strawmen Republicans have been throwing up since the Reagan era to defend or retroactively improve his administration.
That’s a good question and one I’ll have to consider.
But Liberal, your OP actually deserves two completely different threads: one about Walter Jones’ about-face and its implications for American foreign policy and people who supported the war; the other about Democrats and the need for them to “reclaim the highground.” Your segue from one to the other in the OP is hamfisted and smacks of nothing but a desire to needle people rather than offer constructive criticism. And the disingenuousness of your position was further highlighted, in my opinion, by your offensive suggestion in a later post that Hentor (and, presumably, many other who opposed the war) didn’t really have a principled opposition to the war, and doesn’t really care about dead Iraqis.
Also, your call for Democrats to “reclaim the highground” makes the assumption that they should all agree with you about where the highground actually is, and what sort of soil it’s made up of. You accuse Hentor of being a “your-team vs my-team kind of guy,” and i’ve heard you make similar claims about liberals in general, yet all you can do is constantly complain and condemn when people don’t share your precise vision of what constitutes liberty and a good society.
And you really need to get over the fact that the term “liberal” has a different definition for most Americans than the one that you apply to it. You may not like the fact that the modern use of the term “liberal” has shifted away from some the classical liberal positions that you espouse, but i’m afraid that’s a horse that bolted long ago, so shutting the gate now is a rather pointless exercise.
This is not to say that your classical liberal or libertarian position is, therefore, irrelevant or unimportant. It simply means that you need to stop insisting that anyone who calls themselves a liberal should agree with everything you say.
Well, you might be right. It would be nice if you were. But, even if the guy has had a genuine change of heart, i’m still not sure why the OP thinks this is some sort of lesson in morality or integrity for those of us who opposed the war all along.
Mhendo, it isn’t a lesson in morality or integrity. As I said, I am ambivalent about Jones. It is a lesson in politics. Someone has suggested that I shouldn’t talk about how to do politics since the LP is politically weak. However, I am not a member of the LP. I resigned from it long ago when it became overtaken by Constitutionalists and other statists.
I simply think that the same thing that convinced Jones might convince other conservatives more effectively than screeching. Say the words they say, like freedom, but with meaning. What Jones learned was that people were robbed of their freedom. He might have learned this sooner if modern liberals were not ashamed to say the words.
Is there any point in even asking where the fuck you got *that * idea from?
As I said in the OP, his soul was convicted because a family had been made fatherless for lies about freedom.
From what I’ve seen, Liberal believes that if the Democrats became squared-jawed libertarians who spoke earnestly of tyranny and freedom and social contracts entered into freely between free-thinking men of freedom, it would smash through all the spin, lies, and rhetoric of the Republican PR machine and spontaneously trigger an era of goodness and light. Their reluctance to do so thus places all blame for the actions of both parties squarely at their feet.
And that makes liberals ashamed of the word freedom how?
Exactly. Liberals need to return to liberalism. They’ve lost their bearings.
Didn’t you yourself lionize Al Gore for doing exactly what you are claiming liberals don’t do? Do you really mean in this thread to be calling out “some” liberals, instead of painting all with the same brush, or have you soured on your opinion of Al Gore? Or is Al Gore not a liberal? Or was Al Gore not “screeching” and “shrill” in some way that others are?
Or was mhendo spot on, that this was some poorly constructed transparent opportunity to tie a tired screed about liberals to a very loosely associated current event?
You forgot the smiley: 
Well, that doesn’t make liberals ashamed of the word freedom. That’s a whole 'nuther thing. It is my opinion that two or three generations of dependency on the government teat, the era of modern American liberalism and busybody bureaucracies ushered in by Roosevelt, have left the Democrats as a party of special interests. And special interests aren’t interested in broad ideas like liberty. They’re interested in having their special needs tended. That’s why liberals no longer advocate economic freedom as they once did. They want freedom for the poor, but not for the rich. I don’t know why this should be controversial. Can you point to examples of modern liberals advocating freedom outside the context of some special interest niche? Is there a liberal who advocates leaving people free to decide whom they will and will not serve in a restaurant. Or whom they will or will not hire and fire? Modern American liberalism is divisive by nature. It insists that men have a right to work, but that men have no right to decide whom they will hire. One gets rights, the other doesn’t. The natural course for its philosophy is to split apart. And that’s what’s happening, the rantings of Hentor notwithstanding.
Al Gore is a notable exception. Not surprisingly, he has no base of support in his own party. It was from a free-market website that I was linked to his speech. I didn’t learn about it here. Still, as I said in that thread, I hold reservations that he might still advocate tired old wealth distribution schemes. Still, all in all an inspirational speech.
Nor I. But it’s quite different to say “Us third party folks gotta get organized!” and “You Liberals aren’t doing what I think you should be, and you’re not winning my battles, so y’all really need to check where you’re at.”
It’s very easy to sit on the sidelines and tell one party what they’re doing wrong, but if you’re not involved in making a change yourself all you are is a heckler. It’s very easy to be a Libertarian, with zero chance of getting a candidate elected within the next fifty years, and then mock those who might actually get things done.
How do my “rantings” about your bullshit blame of the war on liberals have anything to do with what you are babbling about in that post, you dumb cocksucker? Please try to keep your aspersions straight.
Ah, yes. Sweeping “should” statements. Takes me back to college. Specifically, hanging out with my pot-smoking anarchist housemates in college. They’re fun to say, and no one can accuse you of not having conviction.
Unfortunately, most of the rest of us prefer to focus on the world we actually live in, not the one you wished we lived in.
Maybe your offense meter is set a bit too tenderly. I’m not mocking you. I’m asking you to consider these ideas. After all, they’re ideas you used to advocate yourselves.