Do Democrats Really Want Us to Fail in Iraq?

very interesting. thanks for posting it.

Good article - thanks AirTrainer.

This really sums it up for me:

If traditional Western values of governance ultimately provide the basis for a strong, peaceful and free Iraq, then the world will see that much of what was true for 18th century white European Judeo-Christian colonials is also true for 21st century Muslim Iraqis. The universality of Western values -- and of the Judeo Christian truths that form the foundations of those values -- will gain profound credibility. Deconstructionism and its current political host, the Democratic Party, will both suffer enormously. For deconstructionists bent on discrediting Western values, victory in Iraq is the worst possible outcome.

That's funny, Bush and his warhawks get war money from the Congress each and every time they go ask for it, and at least 1/2 to 2/3 of the Dems vote for it. That hardly sounds like the Democrats are anything BUT pro-war.

But hey, the rightwingdings always need an enemy, at home and abroad, so it's time to chant the mantra:

"The Democrats are anti-war."
"The Democrats are anti-war."
"The Democrats are anti-war."

... as if that will EVER make that true.

The question uppermost in my mind is:

"Why does AirTrainer hate America?"

He hee!

Anytime someone of any party or political persuasion repeatedly refers to the opposition as "they and them" and lumps everyone into one basket, I immediately discredit their opinions. With such various and sundry sweeping statements, this author lumps "all who do not agree" into one miserable camp, and all who do not agree may as well be called traitors, and taken out to be shot.The glaring omissions here are the never ending and shifting reasons for the stupid and "America bankrupting" Iraq war.The author shifts focus from misguided former left wing admirers of communism, to judeo-christian values, while simultaneously attempting to marginalize all who oppose the Iraq war, and beating his literal breast, in support of a failed policy of invasion and attempted nation building. Perhaps this author should dig a little more deeply into the recent transfers of Kurdish oil field leases to the real winners of this war. American contractors, government contractors, and yes, he almost guessed it, The Communist Chinese neo-capitalists! Knowing this administrations tactics: my question would be, who paid him to write this?

You know if you really support this sort of thing (no matter your boring self-serving politics) you can enlist or get a contract job there making decent money....

FYI
3900+ Americans dead. Up to 100,000 casualties. And the Iraq estimates are estimated at over a million dead.

$3.5 trillion estimated total for this and the Afghanistan war.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.
– Albert Camus

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the author's opinion, I still find the article interesting.

I agree with Maggie. The article is well written and persuasive.

I don't agree with most of what Mr. Mersereau writes. In particular he refers to an era when the citizens of the US had good Christian values, and that era never existed. Corruption has always been a part of the US, and the best we can do is limit corruption to a manageable amount.

GZ makes an excellent point about the moon bats and war. Let me remind everyone within eye shot that during the last moon bat pow-wow, each bat was given the chance to state, in unequivocal terms, just when they, as Our New President, would pull the US troops out of Vietnam - ah, Iraq. Every single one of 'em stared at the floor, shuffled their feet and mumbled. That includes Hitlery Klinton, the scourge of freedom everywhere. So much for the moon bats.

I'd likely vote for a Democrat at the national level if they'd actually be antiwar in speech, thought and deed. None of them are. The only candidate that has a well-outlined philosophy of getting out of Iraq is Ron Paul.

The rest are just warhawks and chickenhawks. I loathe them both, but I respect the warhawks more since they are honest about their militancy. Moonbats just "shuffle their feet and mumble" a lot, as Maddie identified. They don't want the war to stop, but don't have the balls to admit that to their constituency. Well, their votes are public, as well as their "mumblespeeches". The chickenhawks love war. Clinton loves the war, too. She won't deny the President the money and Congressional authorization to wage this war. That makes her a DIRECT collaborator.

I wonder if the author includes Ron Paul as a "defeatist"? Or, the majority of Americans including many Republicans?

Btw, GZ and Madjack I think you are mistaken. Dennis Kucinich has planned to get out of Iraq from the start (and has said so). In fact he voted against giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq (which was unconstitutional).

I think the problem here highlights the fact that liberalism is not a political affiliation, it is a religion.

A case in point--I have had several arguments with people who emphatically stated that "those people" in Iraq and Afganistan don't want the freedoms we have,ie., the right to vote, or other freedoms we enjoy. Not much unusual here, except the people taking this ridiculous position happen to be African American!

Or, there is the phenomena of Joe Lieberman being the only liberal in Congress of Israeli heritage who consistantly supports Israel in the Middle East!

The American Liberal, IMO, would like nothing better than to wake up tomorrow to find out that the United States had suffered a full scale military disaster in the Middle East.

I thought that the title airtrainer presented us went out of style just after 'Mission Accomplished.'

Some folks are still eating Freedom Fries; know anybody like that?

The posted article is complete and total bunk.

It perpetuates the tired, shopworn cliche' of the weak-kneed, cut and run liberals who want us to fail.

Americans of all political stripes have recognized this fraud of a war for what it is. The author has conveniently painted this now as 'liberals' wanting our country not to succeed.

If liberalism is a 'religion', arch-conservatism is a cult.

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

I would like to know if any of the 'McCaskeys' of this topic took the time to ACTUALLY READ the article presented above.

It is obvious that McCaskey, GuestZero, and Charlatan failed to read the article.

Do you guys want do-overs, or are you going to stick with your prior thoughts? If you want to READ the article and then comment, I'll just wait a bit until responding. Go ahead and revise any of the prior crap that you have written.

Be advised that this opportunity is presented as a kindness in light of the willful ignorance you have previously demonstrated.

Giddyup!

But that article is like all long and stuff!

Your 'vaunted' article was read in its entirety.

Selected passages that underscore my post:

Yet leading Democrats are beyond the point of discouragement. They are pessimistic; even hopeless. They have been this way for a long time.

Defeatist Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, not so much because they fear failure, but because they believe failure is inevitable. They believe the Bush Administration's goal of helping Iraq establish a democratic government is a fool's errand (LOL, this is why we invaded, we're to believe now? I'm sure the American taxpayers would have been satisfied with that reasoning back on 3/03)

Listen closely to Osama bin Laden's recorded monologues, and you will detect at least some subtle similarities to the diatribes of the Democratic Congressional leadership

(Interesting bin Laden's name comes up here in yet another tired shopworn attempt to portray any criticism of the war as aiding and abetting our enemies. Of course, at least bin Laden really did have something to do with 9/11--he really is an enemy-- while Saddam did not)

On and on ad nauseum. What's especially moronic is the insistent linking of liberals with democrats, as though one could never stand alone without the other and they're completely interchangeable.

And, as has been already stated, where does that leave Republicans/Independents/anybody else-with-half-a-brain who's gone sour on this fool's errand?? Are they reckless 'deconstructionists' as well? Are they hoping for a total collapse of U.S. interests in the region? Been brainwashed by those heathen Libs, have they?

Your administration doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to show images of the flag-draped caskets of of our servicemen/women coming come to Dover Air Base and you speak of weak-kneed, desconstructionist Liberals?

Good Christ, what a f*cking joke.

The people who voted for the war should be on the front lines, followed closely by the people who supported them.

That's patriotic.

I totally deconstructed poetic justice. Booya!

I'm so sick of these craphole tirades that are written by cheerleaders from either side. The author may have served in the military, but now he wears a skirt and a sweater with a big "R" on the front. Hell, he may even have some pom-poms and a few "go team" chants in his closet.
Instead of wasting his time and energy in composing wasteful junkets of hate, perhaps he could be educating people on the issues that dems and reps are both sweeping under the rug. I'm still waiting for someone besides Ron Paul to tackle the financial debacle that is unfolding and respond to David Walker's pessimistic fortune for America.
Perhaps we'll have to all wait until China pulls the rug out from under the value of the dollar, or some other financial ruin, before we protest YouTube caricatures asking Presidential candidates ludicrous questions.
People such as Adam G. Mersereau are the true deconstructionists. He is one of the many who want to continue to use divisive language to offend and defeat... but he's fighting a war in La La Land and ignoring the one in his own house. Cheers to you, Mr. Mersereau, you are the supreme boob.

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't take the author's criticism of 'some' as a blanket critique on 'all.'

Defeatist Democrats does not, imho, even apply to all Dems who want the war to end.

Leading Democrats was, imho, a reference to the presidential candidates and leaders in the House/Senate.

As for the similarity between the OBL tapes and some of the Dems, well...it does exist. I draw no inference from that fact (McCaskey-I'd be interested in your perspective on that), but you have to admit that they do sound very similar.

How about these similarities? Or these?

"I'm so sick of these craphole tirades that are written by cheerleaders from either side. The author may have served in the military, but now he wears a skirt and a sweater with a big "R" on the front. Hell, he may even have some pom-poms and a few "go team" chants in his closet."

*chuckles

so true.

Hey Maggie--perhaps if the author had stuck to the phrase he used in his opening paragraph--'certain Liberal Democrats'--it wouldn't appear to be such a blanket statement against Democrats in general.

The deeper we go into the 'essay', the more the slant and tone becomes basically about all Liberals, all Democrats. It's very evident to me.

I see, McCaskey ... and you'd be more sensitive to such slant than I would be.

:)

And, while we're at it, the whole Judeo-Christian line of argument is equally absurd.

Anyone could argue extreme conservatives 'need' a present-day bogeyman, a Saddam or a bin Laden, like they 'needed' the Soviet Union during the Cold War, to push for and validate their agenda. Instead, the author only gives the argument from the Liberal perspective on this.

How convenient for him.

We didn't go to war in Iraq over some assinine multi-cultural debate like whether someone says "Merry Christmas" as opposed to "Happy Holidays" or vice versa.

I'm going to go through this nice and slow so that all of you with reading impediments can keep up. I won't make any one posting particularly long, either.

*************************************

Let's start with this gem from McCaskey:

The posted article is complete and total bunk.

Really? So this part is 'bunk', eh?

Yet Western civilization is founded on the idea that many Judeo-Christian truths -- and the Western values that spring from them -- are true for all men and women. This idea is especially important in the United States, a nation founded on a distilled set of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values that were declared to be true for all men.

You really don't know your ass from first base, do you? You are the failure-loving lib of which Mersereau writes. No wonder you are so hostile to the article; it describes YOU too well. Truth hurts, don't it, pookie?

*************************************

In my next installment, I'll connect the DNC, liberalism, socialism, moral relativism, Noam Chomsky, and GuestZero.

AirTrainer is typical of today's Republican.

The US has already won the war in Iraq. We caught Saddam, dismantled his army & made sure there were no WMD. George Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq have ended. He said the US and her allies were victorious.

So---why don't Republicans acknowledge this victory? Are they being defeatist?

Interesting article indeed...I think the author is full of crud, and pretty darn ignorant about religion AND politics,but what the hey...He puts up these straw men arguments about what "multiculturalism" is, puts it as an either-or thing. That in order to see value in the basis of our country, you have to belittle the value of other cultures, and if you want to see value in other cultures you have to put down our own. What a small-world perspective, and the points he makes to criticize the "deconstructionists" really apply to conservative thought as well, perhaps even moreso. He arguments all start from seriously flawed premises...

It's funny that he mentions "Judeo-Christian" basis of Western civilization, but really you could look at commonalities from an Abrahamic perspective - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all share common origins. I wonder how that would change the points he is trying to make?

And what a totally tunnel-vision of people's perspective on the war. Perhaps many people determine "victory" as something different than what the author does. It appears as if he is strictly thinking in military terms, but what does a victory in Iraq look like? The administration never fully articulated it, even from the beginning...

Yet Western civilization is founded on the idea that many Judeo-Christian truths -- and the Western values that spring from them -- are true for all men and women. This idea is especially important in the United States, a nation founded on a distilled set of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values that were declared to be true for all men.

SO F*CKING WHAT.

Tell us again, Airtrainor, what does this have to do with the war in Iraq, and the 'defeatist' Liberals?

Airtrainor, why don't you pick up a copy of "Curveball", by Bob Drogin. You see, the book portrays the real reason we invaded that country, or aren't we really talking about that anymore?

Are conservatives the only ones who hold these...Judeo-Christian truths...so close to their hearts?

You really have consumed all the kool-aid, haven't you?

Here ya go, Airtrainor, I'll highlights the key words and phrase in this passage for ya:

"In comparison to many other cultures in the world, western cultures tend to emphasise the individual. However, western societies have traditionally been more socially collective, giving a major importance to social majoritary traditions or tendencies (such as customs, protocols, beliefs or fashion), that often tended to be prescripted over minority or individual ones, especially when hardly divergent, which could often cause intolerance, prejudices and social exclusion. However, liberal, romantic, socialist and democratic ideas, that have had an important, growing impact in late modern society, have caused an increasing degree of respect and tolerance toward differences, as well as an important support or expectance of originality, that manifests in artistic criteria. Thus, such differences are usually understood as a matter of diversity, rather than as a source of threat or conflict. This sometimes even becomes respect for other cultures and interest for them to be studied and learn from, driving to new Scholastic currents, as well as subcultural and countercultural ones."

Is this thinking what gives you such the hard-on, Airtrainor?

So Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad would be in agreement that this is the end result of air-tight moral behavior?

This is a twelve year old boy whose parents were killed.

AirTrainer is typical of today's Republican.

Would that he were.

I don't agree with everything that AirTrainer espouses or salutes when its run up the flagpole, but at least he will state his position on anything and use plain English when doing so.

Ah how I missed AirTroller.

I seem to recall us going into Iraq to stop Saddam from getting or using WMDs.

Saddam is dead and we haven't found WMDs. Mission Accomplished!

Anything else that we're doing in Iraq, including "spreading democracy", is all part of that interventionalist foreign policy that REPUBLICAN Dr. Ron Paul is against.

Guess it really must suck to have members of your own party wanting you to fail in Iraq, eh Airtroller?

What bothers me most about this rant is that it is all about "the Democrats do this, the liberals do that." Not one quote or example to back up his tirade. Just like O'Reilly, Rush, et al: "liberal bad, me good."

Or..."It's all Bush's fault."

Here is my next installment, as promised.

******************************************************************************

In the old ToledoTalk, Guestzero espoused the writings of Noam Chomsky while stating that, the military operations of the USA throughout the world are largely terrorism.. You can imagine my dismay. My response read:

GuestZero,

I didn't realize you were part of the "Hate America Now" campaign. That's a shame, because I have enjoyed many things you have contributed to ToledoTalk.

But today, you disgust me. You have called American and British military forces 'murderers'. You call American military operations 'terrorism'. You focus your analysis of casualties upon losses suffered by Iraqis and Afghanis. You throw a straw man argument on the table that paints Americans as being thirsty for revenge and having a sick love affair with propaganda, torture, imprisonment, dropping bombs and outright murder. The true gem among your statements is your reference to Noam Chomsky!

If anyone has ever earned the right to be called COMMIE PINKO BASTARD it would be Noam Chomsky.

For those of you not familiar with Chomsky, here is a bio that falls short of telling the full story. Noam was an anti-Vietnam War activist, and a full-blown Pol Pot supporter. You may remember Pol Pot as being the dictator of communist Cambodia that killed over 1.5 million of his fellow Cambodians. There were less than 8 million people in the entire nation. Noam also was a fan of Mao Tse Tung's China, saying that it was a 'relatively livable' and 'just society'.

If those references don't suffice, you might remember Chomsky as the idiot that ran into the media spotlight yelling, "9/11 is America's own fault. We brought this on ourselves."

Well, GZ, if you are such a Chomsky fan, you should be familiar with this quotation from the old commie:

I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.

We are no longer trying to determine if you are a prostitute, GZ; we're just negotiating a price.

Hypocrite!

Most sincerely,

the Immoral Bastard

******************************************************************************

Chomsky is the epitome of the not-so-neo-leftists that reared their ugly heads in the 1960’s. Their unkind assistance helped the United States to achieve a military defeat in Vietnam that really wasn’t indicative of the military.

******************************************************************************

Hillary Clinton is a socialist and a prominent Democrat. She’s not a socialist because I say it to be so. She’s a socialist because of her own words. In 2004, she said, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." I don’t think there is a better definition of socialism, courtesy of comrade Hillary.

Liberalism has a core tenet. It’s called moral relativism, and it says that there are no universal moral truths; everything is based in situational circumstances. Abortion is promulgated today because our highest court caught the immoral virus known as moral relativism.

Prominent DNC’er Hillary Clinton is also a liberal. Supporting my contention is the following:

1. 1974: pro-choice fervency not based on any personal abortion. (Jul 2007)
2. 1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion. (Jul 2007)
3. 1999: keep abortion safe, legal & rare into next century. (Jul 2007)
4. Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases. (Jun 2007)
5. 1993:Early action on abortion rights ended Right's dominance. (Jun 2007)
6. Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women. (May 2007)
7. Fought for years to get "Plan B" contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
8. Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too. (Nov 2006)
9. Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006)
10. Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania. (Nov 2003)
11. Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice. (Oct 2000)
12. Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
13. Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose. (Jan 2000)
14. Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. (Jan 1999)
15. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
16. Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
17. Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
18. Cairo Document: right to abortion but not as family planning. (Sep 1996)
    Voting Record
19. Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
20. Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
21. Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
22. Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
23. Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
24. Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
25. Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
26. Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
27. Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
28. Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
29. Provide emergency contraception at military facilities

******************************************************************************

Tying this all up in a revolting bow is this conveniently-placed webpage.
Of all of the authors on this planet to receive media promotion from the DNC is no other than ......... Noam Chomsky!

******************************************************************************

Your homework is to learn the (real, unvarnished, non-partisan) definitions of the following words:

Slave
Rights
Responsibilities
Freedom

Chew on those for a day or two.

AT - It appears as if you seem to equate Republican with christian, and liberal with non-religious, anything-goes heathens (slightly joking about the second one). From that flawed premise arises most of your argument.

Liberalism does not have moral relativism as a core tenet. You are trying to mix beliefs about governance and philosophical views of morality.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal. I don't think many (any?) would argue that. Although most of what you have documented is that she is pro-choice. which both republicans and democrats support, and oppose, for a number of different reasons.

And the embryonic STEM cell debate does not support that she is a liberal. Prominent Republican Schwarzaneggar, for example, signed legislation providing state monies for embryonic stem cell research beyond the original 21 lines approved by Bush. So is he a liberal?!?!?

Hillary Clinton's statement "for the common good" refers to the tax cuts given to the richest percentage of Americans, and in the speech she is talking to her (most likely wealthy) donors. And you haven't supplied the WHY she said that? Was it to help pay down the burgeoning national debt? Assure fiscal solvency for Social Security? You took her comments seriously out of context to try and slip a point by - shame on you! Every congressperson believes in taking people's money for the common good, every damn one of them. It's called taxes. And they are used for the good of society. The scope and magnitude are what is in question. So is every one of them a socialist?

And what is your point about Chomsky? Are you saying Chomsky represents the Democratic party? Or Hillary Clinton is like Chomsky? That's like saying Pat Robertson or Bill O'Reilly represents the Republican party. But whether you agree with most of what they say or not, you'd be foolish not to think that it is not worth listening to what they have to say. They each make quite a few salient points about society.

And it's interesting - it appears to me as if (a) you have a strong idea that America should be an espoused Christian nation and (b) that you have a very narrow view of what type of Christianity you see as correct.

If anyone has ever earned the right to be called COMMIE PINKO BASTARD it would be Noam Chomsky.

My, how eloquent.

I think I see the problem with you, trainer. See, you'd actually love it if the Soviet Union still existed, if the Berlin Wall was still intact, if Kruschchev was still pounding his shoe on a table at the UN.

But, alas, those days are gone, and you'd think you'd be happy with that; after all, your boy Reagan got so much credit for ending all that nastiness (BTW, his role is WAY overblown in all that, but still, between naps, forgetful moments, and missing 'Mommy' so much when she was away from the White House, Ronnie did a couple things pretty well.)

With no 'Commie-bogeyman' worth a damn to focus on these days, you're slaving away defiling all the at-home Libs and progressives you can think of.

Sorry, trainer, the Cold War is over and most folks have moved on.

Also, trainor, you're totally out of step with all but the most radical of Christians. Most folks really aren't too keen on your far-right fringe thinkings on 'Western culture' and Christianity, but I suppose that's your pile to deal with.

My responses to many of the comments on this thread will be answered soon. For now I’ll continue my prior thoughts. Since the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ figure largely into Mersereau’s article, they require some definition.

******************************************************************************

Slave: a person who is owned by someone
Slave: someone entirely dominated by some influence or person
Rights: anything in accord with principles of justice
Rights: an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature
Responsibilities: the social forces that bind you to your obligations and the courses of action demanded by those forces
Freedom: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
Freedom: immunity from an obligation or duty

Many years ago, President Roosevelt took certain actions that continue to impact our nation. Some were bad and some were good, when viewed with the wisdom of time. Two particular entities (Social Security and the WPA) taught our society the bad habit of enjoying the tax dollars paid by others. I understand that the nation was in a bad way, and I agree that some of Roosevelt’s actions were valuable. But I also understand the pertinence of Ben Franklin’s words: ?? Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.?? The safety purchased by the creation of the WPA and the Social Security program was indeed temporary. Freedom was soon threatened by a little German bastard named Hitler. Regardless of Hitler, the conditions of the ‘deal’ were struck, and the financial obligations required by it continue to this day.

Politicians learned a different lesson from Roosevelt’s actions. They learned that if they promised to deliver other people’s money into the hands of a particular population segment, that population segment would offer up their votes to the politicians at election time.

I don’t know if Roosevelt was aware that he had planted the seeds of socialism in the framework of America’s government, but it is evident that those seeds took root. When I write the words ‘entitlement mentality’, there is no confusion about the condition I describe.

Two groups of slaves have been created. The first group are those individuals that receive the money of others. It is likely that they do not consider themselves slaves; the slavery of influence is referenced here. The second group of slaves is required to provide the cash which is delivered (under threat of force and/or imprisonment) to the first group of slaves. Neither group possesses the freedom due them.

I think that many in this nation have forgotten the connection between their work and their pay. We get a reminder every April when someone in the media advises us how many days the average American has to work to pay the invoice due to the IRS. Have you ever stopped in the middle of a work day and thought, “I will not likely ever see a benefit from this morning’s efforts”? If you are prone to dismissing the tax-related cash deducted from your paycheck, you may want to remember the hours, days, and months that you work, and subsequently contribute, to the ‘common good’ referenced by comrade Hillary.

Two distinct mentalities exist today. One is Liberalism and the other is Conservativism. They are generally further described along the lines of fiscal practice, social responsibility, and politics. Fiscal Liberals are agreeable to the continuation and extension of enslavement in America; fiscal Conservatives are not.

******************************************************************************

This is an awkward place to stop, and I haven’t proofread this to my liking, but my wife wants to watch the Simpson’s Movie now, and I’m inclined to acquiesce.

I’ll have to finish this up tomorrow.

Wikipedia does a good job of addressing the next part:

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues, as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom. Classical liberals, believe that the provision of negative rights, that is freedom from coercion alone, constitutes freedom. As a result they see state intervention in the economy as unneeded, emphasize laissez-faire economic policy, and oppose the welfare state. Social liberals argue that freedom from economic as well as physical coercion is necessary for real freedom. They generally favor such positive rights as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.

******************************************************************************

Who would have guessed that Wikipedia would support Mesereau's thoughts?

Liberalism rejects many foundational assumptions.

Traditions do not carry any inherent value.

Liberalism cannot agree on the most fundamental concept in government - FREEDOM.

Maggie and BabbleMan, you’re welcome. Mesereau did the heavy lifting, though.

That straw-man argument was pretty weak, GZ. You can do better.

Anytime someone of any party or political persuasion repeatedly refers to the opposition as "they and them" and lumps everyone into one basket, I immediately discredit their opinions.

I sometimes do the same thing, but I usually read or listen to the whole message so that I can discern if it is the message, or the author/speaker, that is doing a bad job of communicating the thoughts, Bbcmjeep43.

Perhaps this author should dig a little more deeply into the recent transfers of Kurdish oil field leases to the real winners of this war. American contractors, government contractors, and yes, he almost guessed it, The Communist Chinese neo-capitalists!

Cite your sources, please.

Charlatan,

Are you aware that citing the words of an anarchist is supportive of Mesereau’s article? Thanks for the assist.

What's especially moronic is the insistent linking of liberals with democrats, as though one could never stand alone without the other and they're completely interchangeable.

No, not completely interchangeable. There is probably someone out there that could be described as a classical liberal, I just don’t think that you can name one.

Much of my last two posts were written to provide you with more knowledge than you had on January 5th. What have you done with that opportunity? Also, you would do well to separate Christ’s name from foul language, you mouth-breather.

And, while we're at it, the whole Judeo-Christian line of argument is equally absurd.

No, it is your statement that is absurd. I’ll repeat the following for your benefit:

I’ve had the benefit of reading all of the prior posts, and I can’t help but be remarkably unimpressed by the tempest stewed up within the teapot of Karen Hughes words to an Egyptian leader.

How about if I concede that Hughes doesn’t know her historical documents, and that the Constitution makes no mention of God? I volunteer that the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11, states, “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;…”. Further, I’ll even go along with the idea that the relatively tiny population of founding fathers were deists, even though I haven’t really researched this point. Everybody happy so far?

To all of this I say, “So what?”.

It is impossible for any writer on this forum to argue that the population of this early nation was composed largely of English settlers, mixed with sufficient populations of Scottish, Irish, German, Dutch, and Swedish immigrant to ensure a great religious diversity in the colonies. None of these numerous groups - in principle - favored this diversity of religious belief. But, circumstances forced them into it. How does one live in a such a place without the help of your neighbors?

Within New York alone, there were Dutch Reformed, a few Anglicans, a few Catholics, ‘singing Quakers’, ‘ranting Quakers’, pro- and anti-Sabbatarian Baptists, Moravians, French Huguenots, Congregationalists, Jewish merchants from the West Indies, and German Lutherans. Also included in other colonies were Antinomians, Scottish Presbyterians, and Swedish Lutherans. Would anyone like to argue that Maryland was not founded in 1634 by a group of English Catholic aristocrats?

These ancestors and others like them are significantly more important to understanding the belief systems of our early population than any historical document or public servant. These ancestors are very much like the majority of this nation today – we are joined by our belief that we are inferior to our Creator. While many settlers perished, some lived, and their progeny survived and flourished. Does one really think that it is some architectural anomaly that so many of our governmental buildings contain not just religious features, but those specifically associated with Christianity? Were those generations silently lamenting some malevolent Christian oppression while simultaneously constructing those buildings?

Yeah, right.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." – Patrick Henry

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." – Patrick Henry

Our nation has flourished because of the recognition that our rights stem not from the sovereignty of man, but of God’s, and specifically, from Jesus Christ. It is not the wisdom of man that declares the equality of man; it is our recognition that we are subordinate to our Creator, and that our fellow man is His creation, not man’s.

Do not think for a moment that documents such as the Constitution somehow represented the wishes of this nation. It, and others, were crafted to facilitate broad-based acceptance without getting into sectarian religious disagreements (and there plenty of sects). Further, if we were all equal under man-based sovereignty, then would have been no basis for justifying our disobedience, and rebellion, to the King of England.

"Liberalism cannot agree on the most fundamental concept in government - FREEDOM."

It's not that liberalism cannot agree on these concepts. You have to look at the definition of liberal (or any defintion of political scale) in relation to the time period. If liberalism is defined as a desire to change the status quo, then it wouldn't make sense for "classical" liberals to agree on everything with "contemporary" liberals, since the status quo is always changing. And you could say this for conservatives as well. "Classical" conservatives (if there even is such a term) would have been interested in protecting the status quo of that time period--the Monarchy. (this being said, I think it would be funny to start calling conservatives "Red Coats")

Hell, conservatives of today don't even agree with Goldwater conservatives.

To whom it may concern, citing my sources which include the BBC, UPI, etc, etc, is time consuming, so simply type these words into a google search box and enjoy the reading that follows. kurd oil deals china. Have a NICE DAY AIRTRAINER!

AT-

What point are you trying to make now? You've lost me...Is it an assault on "liberalism" still? Using Wikipedia to back up your points doesn't score much.

Your callouts of the three main points in the last Wikipedia reference don't really support Mesereau's article really at all, unless you twist them by pulling them wickedly out of context of even that small article. You quote "Liberals reject many foundational assumptions" - boo for them! Oh wait, assumptions like DIVINE RIGHT AND HEREDITARY STATUS AND ESTABLISHED RELIGION....Hmmmm...Doesn't that make our founding fathers liberals for rejecting British rule, and a monarchy in general?

Liberals don't agree with what "Freedom" is? And what political group DOES agree? Conservatives sure as heck don't. The Green Party? Whigs? Tories? Christians - heck, we don't even agree on precisely what "Christianity" is or requires...

"Traditions do not carry any inherent value." By pulling it out of context, you would make it appear as if liberals don't believe in an importance to tradition. Oh contraire. But placed back into context of the small article cited, it's really saying that traditions are only important in the good that they do for society, and that traditions need to be changed to for the betterment of society. Call me liberal (LIBERAL!), but that makes sense, and that is not solely a liberal view. Even conservative religions have mostly changed at least some traditions to meet the needs of today's society. (and thank goodness for Vatican II and being able to do masses in other languages!) Societies change over time, and it seems to me that smart societies are savvy about learning which traditions are important, what's important about them, and holding core to that, and not letting the pomp get in the way.

Some more thoughts...

Who would you consider fiscal liberal vs fiscal conservative? By balancing the national budget, wouldn't that make B. Clinton a fiscal conservative, and Bush's increases in spending make him a fiscal liberal?

Based on your definition of slavery, would you consider Christians slaves? (and, BTW, I don't, but I'm following your logic train, of which your flippant use of slavery I do find pretty offensive) If you believe that there is a hell, then you you are coerced to believe and follow rules established by God, under fear of punishment. Your subservience is coerced by threat of retribution. How is that different?

"I'm following your logic train"---

His logic train derailed very early in this process. His latest post had something to do with Karen Hughes talking to an Egyptian leader.

If you can decipher his use of italics and boldface and what thoughts are actually his and not cut-and-pasted from some site or post somewhere else you're willing to put more time into this than I am.

LOL, good luck.