Harry Reid's Oxymoron
Harry Reid just doesn't know anymore.
"We've been able to accomplish quite a bit, but not very much." He then goes on to further the "ethnic cleansing" claim, while at the same time finally agreeing that the surge is working while Congress ain't.
Know why you're not hearing as much about Iraq in the news these days? Because we're winning.
"We've been able to accomplish quite a bit, but not very much." He then goes on to further the "ethnic cleansing" claim, while at the same time finally agreeing that the surge is working while Congress ain't.
Know why you're not hearing as much about Iraq in the news these days? Because we're winning.
Please do not take this question as snide. I know over the internet that someone's demeanor can sometimes come across incorrectly. Let it be known that I've come to respect your reasoning ability through observation of your stances on other issues.
We just happen to disagree here. Which is fine. I've still got your back, so to speak, on the general disposition towards Socialism thing as one example.
As far as this issue goes, don't misunderstand my opposition to the War in Iraq as an opposition to violence. I'm pro-peace, not anti-war (especially not anti-war at all costs, damn I hate that crowd), and sometimes violence is necessary. My attituse on war is that it is the absolute last resort, but once engaged in- you play to win, and it wouldn't be far from the truth to say I believe in turning wherever the enemy calls home into a smoking crater. If some nation were intent on crossing our borders I wouldn't hesitate to mow them down... after a bit of dusting off, of course.
But to me, that wasn't the case in Iraq. I think there were ulterior motives at work which bumped what should have been a last resort option much closer to the top than is acceptable.
Reply
And no worries about how I may have taken your comment. You've proven civil, which is always a plus in my book. It's evident that you and I will disagree on a few topics, but it's refreshing to know that there's at least one person on the cyber-political circuit pleasant enough to realize that there is such a thing as healthy debate, especially when there is a common ground we can both stand on (i.e. your Socialism example).
For that reason, I can appreciate your stance on Iraq, because you're not obnoxious about it. I'll get obnoxious from time to time, I'll admit, but you can rest assured it will never be with you. Just those who demonstrate to me that a firm tongue is the only way I'll be able to get my point across (i.e. purplebard and odanu).
Reply
If that makes any sense.
I suspect that were I to be forced to spend any significant time together with you there would be far less of a chance (to the extent of being negligible) of coming to blows than with either of them.
And for that reason I'll hold my tongue publicly in conservatism when you speak in favor of the War. I refuse to be the one to give (what I can only assume to be) those two Socialists any solid ammunition against you.
Reply
For the most part, any time I find myself diligently arguing my case for the war with someone is when that person happens to be one of those "avoid war at all costs because it is intrinsically evil" folks. It's the same line of thought that goes into the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" mentality that you find coming from the other side, which I've just expressed my loathing for.
I'm perfectly willing (and for the most part, appreciative) to have healthy dialogue with someone who shares separate views from me, provided the discourse is civil and thought-provoking. I'll be the first to name several folks on the left side of the spectrum that frequent conservatism with whom I have no qualms with due to their tendency to engage in honest, open dialogue (hey_its_michael comes to the forefront of my mind).
Sadly, there will always be those to make my blacklist. It's their arrogance that sets them apart from the crowd and puts them firmly in my sights.
And yes, purplebard is the definition of socialist tool. He won't be happy until Pappa Government is telling him when to piss and what to eat. As for odanu, she's basically just the typical catty, man-hating feminist who tried to sideswipe me out of nowhere once (not surprisingly in the middle of a thread between me and purplebard.
Reply
As a classical liberal I find no end to amusement over the fact that my distant cousins of today who call themselves "liberal" are almost unrecognizable to me. Hell, they would probably think of me as that nearly forgotten crazy uncle locked up in the attic who no one likes to be reminded of... even though they are living on my inheritance.
I've noticed a pattern in conservatism (well, solidified more or less in jimb's "power of Two" post): Melvin posts a level headed response that I really don't find any fault with (maybe it's just me) and about 20,000 modern liberals jump his shit about it resulting in him responding like the asshole they think he is... like a self fulfilling prophecy.
And you, my friend, just like to fuck with people. Believe it or not I followed that string with illaw and politikitty down to the very end only to wonder what the hell the relevance was to the original post.
Oh! But there was one question one of them asked that I wished you had answered about your political leanings. Maybe you'll answer it for me since I'm not trying to be a dick about it in any way. What kind of Conservative are you?
And yeah, hey_its_michael is probably a perfect example of someone who is my polar opposite (not sure where he stands on Socialism overall though) in a lot of ways and yet I find I can't help but to at least respect and even like the guy because of how he carries himself and the stuff that we do agree on.
Reply
Ha, so you read that? That certainly made my day in the cubicle a bit more entertaining, to say the least. At least mine and illaw's dialog ended on a high note.
As for what kind of Conservative I am, I'm more of a social/fiscal conservative, the latter of which comes from my belief that what's mine is mine, so some may label me libertarian. I hate too many labels, so it's difficult for me to answer. I believe in small government, states' rights, and my right to own a gun, so yeah. I just don't want the government constantly telling me what's good for me when I can make that decision my own.
Reply
Ah, and here we have a major disagreement in the making. I differ from you in that not only do I believe in my right to own a gun, but the right to use the damned thing in defense of my life or property against thugs of every variety!
So I guess some could call me libertarian as well.
In complete seriousness though, it is utterly outrageous to me that the right to self defense is even on the table for discussion- as if there's any side but "Shall not be infringed" to take.
And also in complete seriousness, I see nothing you have listed as being anything I disagree with. I'm a HUGE fiscal "conservative" myself. Probably moreso than most Republicans out there.
So probably the only things we might have a chance to disagree on are Social issues here and there.
I look forward to debating you Mr. Gratia.
Reply
Actually, I agree with you 100%. Maybe I worded my original sentence wrong. I apologize if I misrepresented myself. Yes, I fully believe in defending my property and/or my life, and if I just so happen to have a gun to do it, evildoers beware.
I look forward to debating you Mr. Gratia.
Likewise. I have a feeling I'll learn a thing or two from you down the road. You're kind of a breath of fresh air as far as liberals go.
Reply
No, you didn't. I knew precisely what you meant and was kidding. (I sometimes have an "off" sense of humor.
Likewise. I have a feeling I'll learn a thing or two from you down the road.
Ditto.
You're kind of a breath of fresh air as far as liberals go.
That's because the overwhelming majority of "liberals" these days aren't liberals at all but thinly veiled (on kind of a scale) socialists who wouldn't have the faintest clue what liberalism stands for if common sense, integrity, and being guided by principle (as opposed to emotion) came up and smacked them on the forehead.
And in that, in a way, I just may find them more despicable than you do.
Reply
Heh, ok good. I was really confused for a bit. I can dig it.
Are you familiar with Phil Hendrie? He was a late night radio talk show host out of LA who retired sometime last year. Anyways, you remind me quite a bit of him, as he too was a liberal (well, he referred to himself more as a Democrat than a liberal) and was very adamant about how much he despised the modern "liberal" movement because they had lost sight of what classical liberalism on once stood for. He was a staunch supporter of the war and gun rights and enjoyed nothing more than to have liberals call his show and accuse him of betraying his cause. I think my favorite episode of his was when he interviewed Mark Cuban and proceeded to explain to him why he was a tool for roughly 30 minutes.
That's because the overwhelming majority of "liberals" these days aren't liberals at all but thinly veiled (on kind of a scale) socialists who wouldn't have the faintest clue what liberalism stands for if common sense, integrity, and being guided by principle (as opposed to emotion) came up and smacked them on the forehead.
Right fucking on.
Reply
They are occasionally so ignorant as to consider me to be some kind of radical. What they don't realize is that nothing I believe politically is really anything new... we just happen to live in such a radical departure from what was intended that I probably do look insane to them. You know?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment