Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-03-2005, 03:21 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
TFP Annoyances

There are a few things that seem to be occuring more and more lately which are getting very annoying. It seems like every post is about the same thing with a minor difference.

1) Christian Conservitives are taking over the world.
2) Hippy liberals are destroying the world.

Why are we boxing everyone into these categories? I find both equally offensive being a very christian person with some very liberal views. Maybe things aren't as black and white as you people are making them.

Just because someone doesn't like abortion or wanted Terri to live does not mean they are a Christian extreamist trying to force their beliefs on you.

Just because someone doesn't like Bush or any conservitive ideal it does not mean they are god hating atheists that hate america.

Let's stop opening up posts with sweaping attacks on half the population please.
Rekna is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 03:34 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
I agree totally. People need to take everything issue by issue rather than playing the left/right game. Nothing is worse than getting stereotyped into a group that you don't even associate yourself with just because you don't follow strict party lines.
samcol is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 03:43 PM   #3 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
As an "observer" I will also agree completely......I cannot tell you how many times I have been tempted to close a thread because of the party line debate going on. It is an unfortunate sogn of the times.....and I have watched it become far more pronounced in this forum over the last year......pity, but not suprising.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 04:03 PM   #4 (permalink)
AHH! Custom Title!!
 
liquidlight's Avatar
 
Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.
I've caught myself doing it, that the situations that we're living through engender such powerful emotion that it takes almost a physical checking at times to stop and be mature about my opinions, rather than being reactionary and agressive. I suppose it very difficult to admit that what you see as "right" could be imperfect, so we lash out and make these generalizations to defend our own vulnerable positions.
__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.
liquidlight is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 04:39 PM   #5 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
"Just because someone doesn't like abortion or wanted Terri to live does not mean they are a Christian extreamist trying to force their beliefs on you."

But when that person starts writing their congressman to tell them that they have to ignore the state courts' rulings and do something (what, under the law, I have no idea) to end abortion or save a breathing corpse, then they really are Christian extremists trying to force their values on me.

Doesn't mean you are, but stop complaining about being lumped with the rabid morons and continue to be an intelligent Christian in such a way that people can recognize that it's not all God-Zombies trying to eat the country's brain. If you don't do that, if all you do is protest without backup, then, whether or not you are, you will come across as disingenuous, because that is a tactic much used by the Bush Whitehouse for the blatant lie: Deny without Defense, then complain ad nauseum about being not taken their word. People who are already predisposed to distrust vocal Christians on substantive issues are very sensitize to this tactic and frankly, sick to death of hearing it.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 04:42 PM   #6 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
The problem is not just here. We are a very divided nation right now.

During the Cold War we knew who the "enemies" were and we fought to be the best in everything (education, standard of living, healthcare, etc).

What has happened is there is no true threat anymore and we are being divided over the radicals on both sides that cannot allow someone to say "I have liberal views and I have conservative views."

Our 2 parties (and even the Liberalism, Greens and other minor parties) dictate views and preach that you must subscribe to all their views or you are the enemy.

There's no concessions anymore, as seen in numerous posts lately, the radicals on both sides consider compromise in anything a sign of weakness and refuse to give anything.

Perhaps we need an exterior enemy to maintain our greatness (as sad as that seems), because indeed we seem to want to feast upon ourselves if we have noone outside to hate.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 05:37 PM   #7 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Actually, I see folks from all poles of the spectrum posting their disaffection with party-line rhetoric. I see that more and more these days. That is the kind of positive evolution I pay most attention to.

Rigidly dogmatic rhetoric is always retrogressive, isn't it?
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 05:49 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tophat665
"Just because someone doesn't like abortion or wanted Terri to live does not mean they are a Christian extreamist trying to force their beliefs on you."

But when that person starts writing their congressman to tell them that they have to ignore the state courts' rulings and do something (what, under the law, I have no idea) to end abortion or save a breathing corpse, then they really are Christian extremists trying to force their values on me.

Doesn't mean you are, but stop complaining about being lumped with the rabid morons and continue to be an intelligent Christian in such a way that people can recognize that it's not all God-Zombies trying to eat the country's brain. If you don't do that, if all you do is protest without backup, then, whether or not you are, you will come across as disingenuous, because that is a tactic much used by the Bush Whitehouse for the blatant lie: Deny without Defense, then complain ad nauseum about being not taken their word. People who are already predisposed to distrust vocal Christians on substantive issues are very sensitize to this tactic and frankly, sick to death of hearing it.

If someone feels something is wrong they have every right to try to get the law makers to change the laws. They have every right to try to get abortion ended and you have every right to try to prevent it but calling them christian extreamists is absolutly retarded. If people didn't act from what they believed in their hearts to be true then we would still have slavery amoung many other problems in this nation. As long as people are civil in how they act I have no problem with them doing it.
Rekna is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 06:14 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARTelevision
Actually, I see folks from all poles of the spectrum posting their disaffection with party-line rhetoric. I see that more and more these days. That is the kind of positive evolution I pay most attention to.

Rigidly dogmatic rhetoric is always retrogressive, isn't it?
Yes it is Art.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 08:18 PM   #10 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I agree wholeheartly.

I am staunch supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, but I am painted heavily with the "conservative" brush by some here.

Sometimes it bothers me, but then I remember that it's just a web BBS
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 08:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
I do want to point out that it's apparent to anyone who spends any amount of time around here that some folks are arguing each issue from conviction, regardless of whether it would fit neatly into a liberal or conservative ideal-package, and some folks who just seem to spout talking points.

On the other hand, I don't know very many people at all who don't have a very definite and one sided opinion of the current Administration and its allies in Congress - be it positive or negative, it's rarely mixed, and frequently extreme. I'm afraid this has lead to a with us or against us attitiude that tends to make people's mouths fill with spit when the see the "wrong" bumper sticker on the car ahead of them.

In such a polarized environment, the question to ask is how to restore moderation. I, frankly view myself as a moderate who has had the political center pulled out from under me, and I experience nearly as much cognitave dissonance trying to parse the idiotic extreme liberal positions as I do the idiotic extreme conservative ones. Unfortunately, those are the only positions that get any airtime any more. So how to bring back a sense of moderation? The problem, as I see it, is that an attempt to moderate one's position is likely to be viewed as weakness by the more extreme elements in opposition, who will then demand further concessions, rather than moderating their position. I can surely see that happening on both sides, and I am at a loss to figure out what to do about it civilly. Less civilly, it seems to me that the more extreme positions on both sides should be mercilessly ridiculed, preferably from their own sides. But, then, when more extremist positions are held by those leaing each side, it gets to be a simple problem of pack loyalty, and I have never been good at figuring out how to manipulate that.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 09:02 PM   #12 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
If someone feels something is wrong they have every right to try to get the law makers to change the laws. They have every right to try to get abortion ended and you have every right to try to prevent it but calling them christian extreamists is absolutly retarded.
Actually, it's absolutely accurate. By attempting to change the laws to coincide with their religious beliefs in contravention of the Constitution, and by trying to fill the court system with judges that will not see such laws as contravening the Constitution, they place their religion above their civic duty. That's religious extremism nearly by definition.

It's that whole pesky 1st ammendment thing. There is no overt role for religion in government. It's more subtle than that though, and I didn't phrase it all that well. When individuals act from religious conviction, that's one thing. When a large group of individuals band together over many years and subordinate one of the only two viable political parties in the country to their agenda, it's rather another.

Now, I am not necessarily saying you have any part of this, but it is your responsibility to distiguish yourself from these people if you don't want to get tarred with a broad brush, and, unortunately, because of the rhetorical devices prevalent in obscuring that agenda, just saying you aren't is not believable. This is not my fault. Nor is it yours. Doesn't it piss you off that these people have damaged the value of your word? It does me.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 09:16 PM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467

During the Cold War we knew who the "enemies" were and we fought to be the best in everything (education, standard of living, healthcare, etc).
I'd disagree with this statement. A fair number of Americans (Hanoi Jane and her ilk springs to mind) either didn't know who the enemy was during the Cold War or else didn't care and supported our enemies anyway. Was it appeasement or was it treason? I lean towards thinking it's treason, but that's just me.
moosenose is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 09:41 PM   #14 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
I'd disagree with this statement. A fair number of Americans (Hanoi Jane and her ilk springs to mind) either didn't know who the enemy was during the Cold War or else didn't care and supported our enemies anyway. Was it appeasement or was it treason? I lean towards thinking it's treason, but that's just me.
I saw Jane on TV the other night (I think she has a new book out). She said that the one thing she regretted most in her life was the trip to Hanoi. The other was the 3-ways she engaged in with her first husband and hookers.

Back to the thread topic: I think most people aren't so far to the left or right as they come across in these forums. I bet if we were all sitting around having a discussion over a few beers that we would find much in common. Sometimes after I've written a reply, after reading it later I realize that I came out stronger than I really feel. Also sometimes when I've softened from a somewhat hard position based on others input I have neglected to say so in a timely fashion.
flstf is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 10:39 PM   #15 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARTelevision
Actually, I see folks from all poles of the spectrum posting their disaffection with party-line rhetoric. I see that more and more these days. That is the kind of positive evolution I pay most attention to.

Rigidly dogmatic rhetoric is always retrogressive, isn't it?
Yeah- but sadly no one wants to take their own gripes and advice to heart. They complain about how the other side just sits there and toes the party line while they do the same themselves. Rarely do I ever see a person admit that maybe someone else has a point with what they're saying, and that maybe they've been given something to think about. Everyone just keeps the fight going.
analog is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 11:19 PM   #16 (permalink)
Somnabulist
 
guy44's Avatar
 
Location: corner of No and Where
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
I'd disagree with this statement. A fair number of Americans (Hanoi Jane and her ilk springs to mind) either didn't know who the enemy was during the Cold War or else didn't care and supported our enemies anyway. Was it appeasement or was it treason? I lean towards thinking it's treason, but that's just me.
Really? Who was our enemy? USSR, OK. But Vietnam? We were wrong to go there, W-R-O-N-G. The Vietcong were not our enemy until we made them our enemy. That was a nationalistic dispute that we had no business getting involved in. And those who stood up and said just that weren't even close to treason. They were the very definition of patriots.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 04-03-2005, 11:27 PM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
I'd disagree with this statement. A fair number of Americans (Hanoi Jane and her ilk springs to mind) either didn't know who the enemy was during the Cold War or else didn't care and supported our enemies anyway. Was it appeasement or was it treason? I lean towards thinking it's treason, but that's just me.
I am glad to read that you are cocksure about your talking points, Rush......
I mean moosenose, what research have you done to be so sure about the political details of a 32 year old event?
Quote:
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040322&c=2&s=hayden">http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040322&c=2&s=hayden</a>
Posted March 4, 2004
<b>You Gotta Love Her</b>
by Tom Hayden

Excerpt:

Erased from public memory is the fact that Fonda's purpose was to use her celebrity to put a spotlight on the possible bombing of Vietnam's system of dikes. Her charges were dismissed at the time by George H.W. Bush, then America's ambassador to the United Nations, who complained of a "carefully planned campaign by the North Vietnamese and their supporters to give worldwide circulation to this falsehood." But Fonda was right and Bush was lying, as revealed by the April-May 1972 White House transcripts of Richard Nixon talking to Henry Kissinger about "this shit-ass little country":

NIXON: We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack.... I'm thinking of the dikes.

KISSINGER: I agree with you.

NIXON: ...Will that drown people?

KISSINGER: About two hundred thousand people.

It was in order to try to avert this catastrophe that Fonda, whose popular "FTA" road show (either "Fun, Travel, Adventure" or "Fuck the Army") was blocked from access to military bases, gave interviews on Hanoi radio describing the human consequences of all-out bombing by B-52 pilots five miles above her. After her visit, the US bombing of the dike areas slowed down, "allowing the Vietnamese at last to repair damage and avert massive flooding," according to Mary Hershberger.
host is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 01:27 AM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy44
Really? Who was our enemy? USSR, OK. But Vietnam? We were wrong to go there, W-R-O-N-G.
Yup, Russian Communists = bad, Vietnamese Communists = Good.

Quote:
"If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist."
The more things change, the more things stay the same....

Quote:
what research have you done to be so sure about the political details of a 32 year old event?
<img=src:> http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fond...from_Hanoi.jpg </img>

I've done enough research to know who Tom Hayden is...and to know that committing felonies is wrong. "YMMV".

Last edited by moosenose; 04-04-2005 at 01:32 AM..
moosenose is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 02:32 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tophat665
Actually, it's absolutely accurate. By attempting to change the laws to coincide with their religious beliefs in contravention of the Constitution, and by trying to fill the court system with judges that will not see such laws as contravening the Constitution, they place their religion above their civic duty. That's religious extremism nearly by definition.
You call it religious extremism, but what you described is no such thing. It seems as if your personal dislike for those with religious beliefs coulors your thinking. The Constitution does not ban people from having religious beliefs, nor does it ban people from acting on their beliefs. Also, what if someone had the same exact beliefs and moral set, but didn't actually practice religion, or believe in any particular religion? Would they also be a religious extremist? And maybe judges don't see a law as non-constitutional because it isnt, not because of some vast religious conspiracy. There seems to be a tactic of the left now to label any position they don't agree with that has to do with morality as a religious issue, and then try to ban people holding that belief from making their opinion known, regardless of if they are actually religious. That is how being anti-abortion can make you a religious extremist trying to subvert the Constitution, because rather than deal with the issue head on liberals desire to have the other position disqualified from being debated.

Quote:
It's that whole pesky 1st ammendment thing. There is no overt role for religion in government. It's more subtle than that though, and I didn't phrase it all that well. When individuals act from religious conviction, that's one thing. When a large group of individuals band together over many years and subordinate one of the only two viable political parties in the country to their agenda, it's rather another.
Why is it any different? What makes religion so heinous that it should be excluded? What is religion but a belief system? There is no functional difference, but by labelling positions that they oppose as being religious, the left is able to attempt to deny a large portion of the population a voice. This has nothing to do with the first amendment, it has to do with politics.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 10:15 AM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Yup, Russian Communists = bad, Vietnamese Communists = Good.

The more things change, the more things stay the same....

<img=src:> http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fond...from_Hanoi.jpg </img>

I've done enough research to know who Tom Hayden is...and to know that committing felonies is wrong. "YMMV".
moosenose, have you ever examined what you "know" to identify how you came to know it? It just doesn't seem that you have come to your conclusions from a personal study of the details of the US involvement in SE Asia in the '60s and '70s.

You posted a "Hanoi Jane" talking point worthy of Rush/Hannity.

Your response to whether you did any research that you could post, other than talking points is quoted above.

It seems that your answer consists of a simplistic anti communist sarcasm,
followed by a cliche, a link to a photo of Jane and Tom from a Vietnam era medical unit's website (no surprise, they were married to each other for a number of years, but had been divorced for many years when Hayden wrote
the piece on Fonda that I quoted).

Then you bashed the messenger, Tom Hayden, and you declared that "you know that committing felonies is wrong", claiming the moral high ground for yourself. You ended with an abreviation of a cliche, "YMMV".

You have a very strong opinion that does not stand up to the facts, and you
offer a link to a photo to defend your point. Hayden was divorced from Fonda for many years when he wrote to defend her motives for her actions in Hanoi last year. Isn't ironic that Nixon was impeached, resigned in disgrace, and that the succeeding president, Ford, felt so certain that Nixon would be indicted, that he quickly issued Nixon a blanket pardon, in advance of any indictment?

Nixon's chief of staff, HR Haldeman, his chief policy advisor, John Ehrlichman,
and his Atty. General, John Mitchell, all served time in federal prision for their
illegal actions while serving in Nixon's administration. Kissenger was deemed unfit to serve when oppointed by Bush to head the 9/11 commission two years ago, because of his performance in the Nixon administration during the Vietnam war. Future president GHW Bush was found to have lied to the UN general assembly when he denied Jane Fonda's disclosures about the Nixon plan to bomb dikes in North Vietnam that would have caused massive flooding and signifigant avoidable civilian casualties, followed by starvation,

You display a black or white perspective when confronted with a very complicated set of circumstances. The person that you attempt to smear and
label as treasonous, damaged her reputation protesting against and exposing a corrupt president and his administration that lied to the world, committed war crimes, and recorded many of their discussions for posterity.

Jane Fonda was not indicted, or pardoned. The authorities that she challenged and exposed, were! Your apparent anger and loathing are misplaced, and I doubt that there is any hope of persuading you to think any differently. Others will read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.

The Watergate Conspirators:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/players3.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/players3.htm</a>

Quote:
<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Vietnam%27s_Dikes">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Vietnam%27s_Dikes</a>

Bombing of Vietnam's Dikes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Late in the Vietnam War, the United States of America engaged in a policy of systematically bombing a system of dikes in Vietnam's Red River Delta that protected several hundred thousand people from having their land overrun by water.

The threat of the bombing was used as a leveraging tool against the North Vietnamese to encourage them to accept a proposed truce. The Red River Delta provided the majority of the food to North Vietnam, and the destruction of the farmland and the people within would have starved the nation's population and army. Under this threat, in September, 1972, North Vietnam agreed to drop their demand that President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu of South Vietnam be overthrown. Thiệu rejected the treaty, not wanting to leave North Vietnamese troops in the south.

Many have referred to the bombing of the dikes as a war crime, although little was accomplished in the bombing before it ceased. Actress Jane Fonda is often credited with helping publicize the bombing, for which then U.N. Ambassador George H. W. Bush accused her of lying.

President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger discussed bombing dikes in a 1972 conversation, later published by journalist Daniel Ellsberg:

Nixon: We've got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike [in the Hanoi-Haiphong area]. We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack - which will continue until they - Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks.

Kissinger: I agree with you.

Nixon: We've got to use massive force.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm">http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm</a>
Washington, D.C., 4 December 2003 - Newly declassified State Department documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act show that in October 1976, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and high ranking U.S. officials gave their full support to the Argentine military junta and urged them to hurry up and finish the "dirty war" before the U.S. Congress cut military aid. A post-junta truth commission found that the Argentine military had "disappeared" at least 10,000 Argentines in the so-called "dirty war" against "subversion" and "terrorists" between 1976 and 1983; human rights groups in Argentina put the number at closer to 30,000.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/12/politics/main532794.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/12/politics/main532794.shtml</a>
Kissinger helped coordinate American efforts in Vietnam, winning the Nobel peace prize in 1973 for negotiating the Paris treaty that ended American involvement in the conflict there. However, critics of Kissinger blame him for proposing controversial moves such as the Christmas bombing of Hanoi, and the secret bombing and subsequent invasion of Cambodia.

From 1973 to 1977, Kissinger also served as the nation's secretary of state.

Since leaving government, Kissinger has written several books and remained a popular speaker around the world, often appearing in television interviews as a commentator on foreign policy issues of the day.

However, criticism of Kissinger's policies in Southeast Asia and Latin America has not ebbed. In a series of articles in 2001, writer Christopher Hitchens accused Kissinger of war crimes for the bombing of Cambodia, for his failure to head off Indonesia's conquest of East Timor in 1975 and for his alleged support for a coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende on Sept. 11, 1973.

In April, when Kissinger was visiting London, a Spanish judge asked British authorities to deliver a warrant to question Kissinger over the disappearances of Spanish citizens under Latin American dictatorships. The warrant was not served.
Quote:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg</a>
<a href="http://www.ellsberg.net/">http://www.ellsberg.net/</a>

Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is a former military analyst who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military's account of activities in Vietnam, to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in eroding public support for the war...........

Working again at Rand, Ellsberg managed to procure, photocopy, and return a large number of classified papers regarding the execution of the war. These documents later became collectively known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed the knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed a deep cynicism towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5069430/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5069430/</a>
Tapes: Nixon too drunk
to discuss ’73 Arab-Israeli war
President couldn’t take a call from British PM
at time of high superpower tensions
Over 58,000 of our young troops died in Vietnam, moosenose; in a war that two presidents knew was unwinnable, yet they continued to send our troops to their deaths, and in the process, killed more than 2 million Vietnamese.
Jane Fonda was not the problem in that era, moosenose, Nixon and Kissenger were, and they ordered GHW Bush to lie to the world to refute the truth that Fonda attempted to expose. I know that communism was bad and America was good, but do the ends always justify the means, in your world?

Last edited by host; 04-04-2005 at 10:19 AM..
host is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 11:19 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
This thread sure got derailed fast...
Rekna is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 11:43 AM   #22 (permalink)
Getting Medieval on your ass
 
Coppertop's Avatar
 
Location: 13th century Europe
Welcome to Tilted politics.
Coppertop is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 11:47 AM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
This thread turned into the same thing you were trying to make a point against...lol. Better luck next time.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 02:17 PM   #24 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Then you bashed the messenger, Tom Hayden, and you declared that "you know that committing felonies is wrong", claiming the moral high ground for yourself. You ended with an abreviation of a cliche, "YMMV".
That wasn't directed at Tom Hayden.

Quote:
You have a very strong opinion that does not stand up to the facts, and you
offer a link to a photo to defend your point. Hayden was divorced from Fonda for many years when he wrote to defend her motives for her actions in Hanoi last year. Isn't ironic that Nixon was impeached, resigned in disgrace, and that the succeeding president, Ford, felt so certain that Nixon would be indicted, that he quickly issued Nixon a blanket pardon, in advance of any indictment?
Well, I guess that means Nixon wasn't the only beneficiary of a blanket pardon, then...

Quote:
Nixon's chief of staff, HR Haldeman, his chief policy advisor, John Ehrlichman,
and his Atty. General, John Mitchell, all served time in federal prision for their
illegal actions while serving in Nixon's administration.
So apparently, they didn't hide when they were wanted for criminal activity.

Quote:
The person that you attempt to smear and
label as treasonous, damaged her reputation protesting against and exposing a corrupt president and his administration that lied to the world, committed war crimes, and recorded many of their discussions for posterity.
Or, depending on your perspective, she used her noteriety for personal pecuniary gain...

Quote:
Jane Fonda was not indicted, or pardoned. The authorities that she challenged and exposed, were!
I don't need to remind you that others WERE pardoned, do I?

Quote:
Over 58,000 of our young troops died in Vietnam, moosenose; in a war that two presidents knew was unwinnable, yet they continued to send our troops to their deaths, and in the process, killed more than 2 million Vietnamese.
Jane Fonda was not the problem in that era, moosenose, Nixon and Kissenger were, and they ordered GHW Bush to lie to the world to refute the truth that Fonda attempted to expose. I know that communism was bad and America was good, but do the ends always justify the means, in your world?
WHY was the war unwinnable? Certainly it was winnable militarily. Did you ever read what Giap said about how the war was won by his side? You should, because he talks about people like you, and how people like you kept the war from coming to a sucessful conclusion for the Americans. And while you scream "NIXON, NIXON, NIXON, I notice you're not screaming "JFK! JFK! JFK!" or "LBJ! LBJ! LBJ!" Why is that?

Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield. It was lost on the home front. It was lost because people committed multiple felonies like refusing to register for the draft and being fugitives from justice. Yes, they were later pardoned, just like Nixon was. That doesn't make them any less of a criminal than Nixon was....
moosenose is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 02:44 PM   #25 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
You call it religious extremism, but what you described is no such thing. It seems as if your personal dislike for those with religious beliefs coulors your thinking. The Constitution does not ban people from having religious beliefs, nor does it ban people from acting on their beliefs. Also, what if someone had the same exact beliefs and moral set, but didn't actually practice religion, or believe in any particular religion? Would they also be a religious extremist? And maybe judges don't see a law as non-constitutional because it isnt, not because of some vast religious conspiracy. There seems to be a tactic of the left now to label any position they don't agree with that has to do with morality as a religious issue, and then try to ban people holding that belief from making their opinion known, regardless of if they are actually religious. That is how being anti-abortion can make you a religious extremist trying to subvert the Constitution, because rather than deal with the issue head on liberals desire to have the other position disqualified from being debated.



Why is it any different? What makes religion so heinous that it should be excluded? What is religion but a belief system? There is no functional difference, but by labelling positions that they oppose as being religious, the left is able to attempt to deny a large portion of the population a voice. This has nothing to do with the first amendment, it has to do with politics.

Look, bottom line, and all my predjudices against religious wheel-spinning any opression, and all yours against secular humanism and constitutional law aside (seriously: aside), the problem is not that Christian Fundamentalists will strive for Power by any means necessary nor that those who oppose them will do so by any means necessary. The problem is that we are all people, fundamentally the same kind of thing, perhaps even the very same thing. We need to figure out how to talk to each other.

Does it make me feel like I am accomplishing something by calling you "benighted idiot" or "papist pig-boy" or some other reprehensible epithet? Surely it does, but it is a pleasure I would willingly forego if I could figure out a way that we could all come out of our ideological bastions and start trying to figure out what really is good for ourselves, not what a Texas Oilman or Sexless Nebraska Bluenose says is good for us.

So let's drop it. I know you will try to get your ideals reflected in the law, as will I. I know that you will obstruct my efforts, as I will yours. This is not war - it is political inevitiablity. But we must, unless we care to continue this circular silliness, find common ground where we can. Only then does it become less important that I have a swimming date in a rather warmish and sanguinary pool, and you are worshipping the being that wants to put me there.

Think of it this way: however you want to put it, it was and remains literally true that "The Kingdom of God is at Hand". What could you possibly do to improve on that? Nothing but love your enemy.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 03:04 PM   #26 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by analog
Yeah- but sadly no one wants to take their own gripes and advice to heart. They complain about how the other side just sits there and toes the party line while they do the same themselves. Rarely do I ever see a person admit that maybe someone else has a point with what they're saying, and that maybe they've been given something to think about. Everyone just keeps the fight going.
Well said analog... I couldn't agree more. So many people like to hear themselves talk... enamored with their own opinionl... blinded bytheir own arrogance... stuck in their own insecurity and need to be "right".

Even here and other boards on the web... the discussions aren't really conversations so much as "one upping" each other with the best worded posts, and quick replies.

We could all do well with listening a bit more... closing our mouths, and opening our minds. imho anyway.
HAL3000 is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 06:51 PM   #27 (permalink)
Loser
 
Location: Check your six.
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
You have a very strong opinion that does not stand up to the facts, and you
offer a link to a photo to defend your point. Hayden was divorced from Fonda for many years when he wrote to defend her motives for her actions in Hanoi last year. Isn't ironic that Nixon was impeached, resigned in disgrace, and that the succeeding president, Ford, felt so certain that Nixon would be indicted, that he quickly issued Nixon a blanket pardon, in advance of any indictment?
Actually, Nixon wasn't impeached (Clinton was). Ford stated that his purpose in pardoning Nixon was to keep the country from bogging down in Watergate for years.

Quote:
You display a black or white perspective when confronted with a very complicated set of circumstances. The person that you attempt to smear and
label as treasonous, damaged her reputation protesting against and exposing a corrupt president and his administration that lied to the world, committed war crimes, and recorded many of their discussions for posterity.
I believe that President Kennedy sent the first "advisors" to Vietnam, and it has been reliably reported (by the pilot involved--I've read his book and spoken with him about it) that LBJ lied about Tonkin Gulf II, which was his basis for dramatically increasing the number of US troops there. Records also indicate that LBJ was well aware that he was sending our soldiers to needless deaths.

Quote:
Jane Fonda was not indicted, or pardoned. The authorities that she challenged and exposed, were! Your apparent anger and loathing are misplaced, and I doubt that there is any hope of persuading you to think any differently. Others will read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.
A huge percentage of Vietnam vets would tell you that Jane Fonda caused the deaths of some of our servicemen, and extended the imprisonment time of others.

They're not going to forgive her just because she'd like to sell more copies of her book.

It would also be helpful if you would not intermingle Vietnam with Watergate. Your use of Watergate sequelae to discuss Vietnam is not logical.
F-18_Driver is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 06:54 PM   #28 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
How dare you blaspheme against the architect of the great society, there is no way that a progressive liberal would ever betray his country or lie to the people.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-04-2005 at 06:56 PM..
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 07:02 PM   #29 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
How dare you blaspheme against the architect of the great society, there is no way that a progressive liberal would ever betray his country or lie to the people.

Heh. Yup, just like prisons throughout the US are filled with felons who either committed their crime as a "matter of conscience" (yeah, we just HAD to rob that bank to "stick it to Tha Man" but we SWEAR it was morally the right thing to do!) or who are outright innocent and who are only in jail because of "society's injustice!"
moosenose is offline  
Old 04-04-2005, 09:01 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
Amazing how a thread degenerates. Bring it back to topic or out it goes.
analog is offline  
Old 04-05-2005, 05:55 AM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
This thread should be locked and sticked for all to read as a perfect example of how threads should not degenerate. hehe
Rekna is offline  
 

Tags
annoyances, tfp

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:58 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360