Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-23-2008, 07:59 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:33 AM
which hunt? which hunt? is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Great diavlog! I could listen to a boring policy discussion from these two all day. They are insightful, pragmatic, interesting, and have chemistry.

Good times.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:50 AM
zookarama zookarama is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 32
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

amen to that. Ruy worries that he's just participated in "a long boring policy discussion" Well, this is why I spend so much time on this site. A tremendously successful pairing, IMO. I'll be chewing on tonight's ideas for quite a while.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-24-2008, 02:31 AM
Eastwest Eastwest is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 592
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

What a marvelously intelligent and refreshing discussion. Such a breath of fresh air. I'd say bring them both back head-to-head, but I would also be especially interested in hearing RT engage with yet others.

EW
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:43 AM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

No wonder Ruy Teixeira seemed so smug. If the answer of the Republicans is only to be a pallid echo of the Democrats ("We're for national healthcare too, but we will do it more efficiently"), then the Reagan coalition truly is as dead as Reagan, and maybe it is, judging by the ascendancy of John McCain and the failure of Fred Thompson.

But if that is the case, who will the Republican voters be? Why vote Republican if the party intends the same destination as the Democrats, but just wants to get there a little more slowly? Why bother? Meanwhile, the Democrats are creating new spending constitutuencies. Eventually, most of the country will be getting a government check of some kind. At that point, there will not even be any remaining stigma.

The situation for Republicans is grim, grimmer that anyone wants to admit. On the one hand, you have the libertarians pulling away from the Republican Party over personal automny and social issues. On the other hand, you have the social conservatives, resentful that the Republicans have taken them form granted for decades. They are ready to walk, and the Democrats have prepared a populist evangelicalism for them. The traditional Wall Street Republicans only want to make money; they don't care which country they make it in of which party is in power, as long as taxes are not confiscatory. Paying off politicians with campaign contributions is only a cost of doing business. The national security conservatives, discredited by Iraq in the absence of a major terrorist attack, shout a lonely alarm that nobody wants to hear.

This is a mess for Republicans, and I do not see how they will not be wandering in the wilderness for years. In fact, it may be the end of the Republican Party. If what they say is true -- that the so-called "millennial" generation is socially liberal and sees a larger role for government (when the 30-year-olds are not busy playing video games)-- then it is hard to see how this turns around without long-term efforts at popular education or Democratic mistakes.

Fred Thompson was the only conservative capable of papering over the diffirences in the coalition through the election. The fact that he could not get traction with his campaign indicates that the coalition is dead. I predict that either Hillary or Obama will carry 40 states in an electoral meltdown for the Republicans.

We will become the new "Europe," which may not a bad idea since the old Europe is going Islamic.

Last edited by jmcnulty; 01-24-2008 at 09:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2008, 01:41 PM
waSP waSP is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Anyone else find the reflection on Ruy's glasses to be distracting? Anyone else find his tone overly goofy at times?

Fantastic discussion. Their being engaged with each other kept me tremendously engaged.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2008, 02:26 PM
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee Abu Noor Al-Irlandee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Default Mr. Douthat was considered for NYT

Gabriel Sherman reports in TNR that Mr. Douthat was on the "short" list of 25 persons in the running for the "conservative" columnist slot at the New York Times that went to Bill Kristol.

I find it hard to imagine anyone in BH TV land who wouldn't agree that Mr. Douthat would have been a better choice.

I really like Mr. Douthat's personality, intelligence and his takes on popular culture. The only time I can't read him is when he tries to defend Republican politicians but he does this pretty rarely.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2008, 02:31 PM
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee Abu Noor Al-Irlandee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

The new "Europe," jmcnulty? Didn't you hear that the U.S. is being taken over by Mexico? (or is that only the portion that previously was Mexico, Mr. Kaus?)

So, jmcnulty would you rather live in the coming United States of Mexico or the Islamic Caliphate of Europe?

[QUOTE=jmcnulty;69266
We will become the new "Europe," which may not a bad idea since the old Europe is going Islamic.[/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:37 PM
Trevor Trevor is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

I dunno, JM. How much of the much-vaunted Republican crackup is just a function of an idiosyncratic candidate field? If Thompson had proved to be a more effective campaigner we probably wouldn't be hearing much about deep ideological rifts in the party.

Further, I think Romney would do a good job of holding the coalition together, even if he lost in the general. He very explicitly appeals to all three legs of the Reagan coalition, and if he loses it's easy to attribute that to some combination of his Mormon beliefs, his strikingly transparent insincerity, and the general political climate. There's no reason the Republicans couldn't run a conventional, Reagan-style conservative in '12 and expect to do well.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:57 PM
Trevor Trevor is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Agree that this was a remarkably good episode.

Some thoughts on a potential Republican realignment:

For me it seems to come down to which constituency the party can afford to alienate in order to shift. Which interest groups wield the most power within the party?

For something like Douthat's (quite appealing) pro-family agenda, you need a diminishing of the power of Wall Street Republicans, who currently drive the anti-tax agenda. One imagines there aren't actually a whole lot of votes there, and it's hard to imagine CEOs suddenly deciding to vote Democrat just because their priorities go down a peg. But Jon Chait argues that they're the bloc the really calls the shots in the party, and they have always won conflicts between their priorities and those of other groups. Is Chait right? What has to happen for them to lose their grip?

The priorities of the social conservative base are probably the biggest liability in terms of winning over my (Millenial) generation, but they are a huge part of the coalition votes-wise. Would they accept a pro-family agenda that was also multi-racial and pro-gay rights? One could imagine a broader campaign against the licentiousness of the hookup culture that treated stable, monogamous homosexual relationships with respect and tried to work with socially-conservative black and Latino leaders to combat births out of wedlock, but that would require dialing down on vocal opposition to gay rights, recognitions of Southern "heritage," and immigration demagoguery. I genuinely don't know how much it would cost them to force those elements out of the party, or at least relegate their concerns to the back burner.

The national security hawks actually seem like the smallest problem, and a shoo-in for inclusion in any Republican coalition. Their priorities cease to be a problem as soon as Americans stop dying in Iraq, either because we pull out (call it a victory if Republicans make the call, an embarrassing loss that must be avenged if it's democrats) or because things actually settle down there on their own (call it a victory). Doe that mean that hawks become the ideological core of the party, or just a powerful interest group that's always along for the ride. It's hard to imagine foreign policy really becoming the animating force behind a whole half of the political scene.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-24-2008, 04:42 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Response to Abu Noor Al-Irlandee:

You aksed: "So, jmcnulty would you rather live in the coming United States of Mexico or the Islamic Caliphate of Europe?"

Thankfully, it will not affect me. My children and grandchildren? Come back in 50 years and tell me. I once thought that this would not be a danger for 200 years, but at the speed it is preceding, 50 years sounds about right. As Lenin said, every revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door.

Planes, tanks, and missiles are not the proper "metric" for this war. Zeal, immigration, and numbers (birth rates) are. In those areas, we are losing and nearing collapse. We are showing that we have no willingness to resist infiltration by a foreign element, whether it comes from Mexico (and is Christian, but culturally foreign and irrendentist) or the Islamic world.

At some point, it will be more convenient for masses to follow you and convert to Islam. Someday, we will see someone at the Academy Awards wearing hijab (to general applause). Islam will become the Kaballah of tomorrow. Is anyone willing to resist in the name of "Christendom"? Why would we resist when the elites consider Christianity vestigial and a problem -- when they consider it at all. Note the contempt for Christianity on this board among literate commenters. Against this, personal piety will not be able to stand for long.

Zawahiri would be smart to abandon the jihad of the AK-47 in favor of the jihad of the cradle and immigration. Muslims do not have to rule through a Caliphate. Look at Brussels, where no one will dare oppose the 30 percent of the city council that is Muslim to avoid being called "racist."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-24-2008, 06:00 PM
cousincozen cousincozen is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 62
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Mr. Teixeira's remarks concerning "the next American people," delivered in an offhanded, conversational, nonchalant, wingback-chair manner, creepily summoned up for me Bertolt Brecht's "electing a new people," referenced in Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation. With that intense light reflection off his glasses, all he needed was a lit cigarette in a long black cigarette holder (and it's not that I'm saying that he reminded me of Major Toht in Raider's of the Lost Ark).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-24-2008, 06:01 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default "infilitration by foreign elements"

Quote:
In those areas, we are losing and nearing collapse. We are showing that we have no willingness to resist infiltration by a foreign element, whether it comes from Mexico (and is Christian, but culturally foreign and irrendentist) or the Islamic world.
JM, No te preocupes tanto. Ojalá que los científicos descubran una vacuna antimexicana para inmunizarte, antes de que sea demasiado tarde, contra esta plaga que infecta y contamina la pureza de la raza blanca.

Allah Hu Akbar,
Wonderment
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-24-2008, 06:21 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Response to wonerment:

If you play your cards right, you may end up putting all your posts in Spanish or Arabic, just to show how sophisticated you are. Maybe that does not bother you. I wonder if the reverse would bother anyone in Mexico City or Mecca? It sounds like you reject the very idea of a "foreign element."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-24-2008, 06:42 PM
cousincozen cousincozen is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 62
Default Re: Response to Abu Noor Al-Irlandee:

"As Lenin said, every revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door." I think Toynbee's "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide" is more apt.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-24-2008, 07:47 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Response to Abu Noor Al-Irlandee:

Except, as you know, suicide is prohibited by the Qur'an.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:55 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

JM - What Ross Douthat says in this diavlog outta scare you silly, especially given your propensity to go down the scary road.

Last edited by David_PA; 01-24-2008 at 10:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:06 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

jm:

I wouldn't worry too much about a prolonged Republican time in the wilderness. The Democratic leadership has an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for one, and for another, the right-wing noise machine will only become stronger if the Dems run the table in the next election.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:32 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
jm:

I wouldn't worry too much about a prolonged Republican time in the wilderness. The Democratic leadership has an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for one, and for another, the right-wing noise machine will only become stronger if the Dems run the table in the next election.
I wouldn't put Hillary in the 'defeat from the jaws of victory' category. Though I'm supporting Obama. H has more inevitability; and you've got to acknowledge that unlike Dukakis, Kerry, or even Gore, she's an excellent fighter.

Of course, if H is the pres. and doesn't have a successful first term, you'll be right, BJ.

Last edited by David_PA; 01-24-2008 at 11:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:38 PM
cousincozen cousincozen is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 62
Default Re: Response to Abu Noor Al-Irlandee:

"All great nations commit martyrdom" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-25-2008, 12:15 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

David:

Quote:
I wouldn't put Hillary in the 'defeat from the jaws of victory' category.
You're right about that. She's a canny and capable politician who doesn't make big mistakes.

On the other hand, picking her as the nominee risks snatching defeat in the larger, party sense: either she loses the general, or takes office with nearly half the country permanently locked into Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Neither of these is really her fault, but it is reality. So, to return to my original point, jm's worry about a prolonged Republican absence from power is probably unfounded.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-25-2008, 12:58 AM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
David:
You're right about that. She's a canny and capable politician who doesn't make big mistakes.

On the other hand, picking her as the nominee risks snatching defeat in the larger, party sense: either she loses the general, or takes office with nearly half the country permanently locked into Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Neither of these is really her fault, but it is reality. So, to return to my original point, jm's worry about a prolonged Republican absence from power is probably unfounded.
The data & trends both Ruy and Ross discussed didn't point that way; rather, they point to a long-term democrat trend.

What you appear to be saying BJ is that H, while canny and capable as a politico, is at the same time too politically inept to prevent herself from falling prey to C-derangement-syndrone. My view: Hillary's a lot wiser now and would prevent a lot of that from happening - again.

Furthermore, if there is a dem-trend wave, I think Hillary would be able to ride it - meaning she'd get 10% - 15% of electorate (from those who didn't vote for her) to, addition to those who voted for her, rate her favorably if she performed well.

I think Obama could do a better job of ushering in and maintaining a dem-trend, which is why I'm supporting him. But, H could do almost as well.

Last edited by David_PA; 01-25-2008 at 01:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-25-2008, 01:22 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

David:

You make two good points: reminding me of Ruy and Ross's predictions about trends, and arguing for Hillary Clinton being able to win over some of her detractors.

To the latter, she does have some evidence of doing this from her efforts in (pretty red) upstate NY when running for Senator. It remains to be seen if she can overcome the right-wing noise machine on a truly national scale, though. I swear, she could get elected president, end all strife in the Middle East, cure cancer, solve nuclear fusion, and invent the next Internet, and Rush Limbaugh would still be railing against her. And worse, a lot of people would say Rush was right.

Which leads me to my even more serious doubts about your first point. For a long time now, the majority of the population's view on issues has much more closely resembled a Democratic platform, yet people still keep voting Republican. Or, at least, did until 2006. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons why this should be so, but in the end, there's something real at work here, and not just in Kansas. Maybe I'm being defeatist, or just worrying unnecessarily based on recent history, but ... well, ask me how I feel in two years.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-25-2008, 01:41 AM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Ha - well, BJ, I definitely agree that Rush and a good percentage of his ditto-heads would hate H 'til the end of their days, no matter what she would do, if pres.

Still, think she can win over some centrists and center-rights.

I'd be inclined to agree that with you that the dems wouldn't be able to cash in on the dem-trends, if not for two things: 1) breaking in 2006, the repub attack machine isn't at full strength like it was in 2000 and 2004, 2) hearing Ross assess the repub's strength in the current climate, showed a party with an old message out of focus with the times. That can't be turned around quickly.

I'm not saying dem landslides, just at least a percent or two more falling their way - enough to win, given how close the last two pres contests have been.

And ... even if I thought you were right, I wouldn't admit that now. I'd pay homage to your 'I told you so's' next Nov - and hope you'd do the same.

Last edited by David_PA; 01-25-2008 at 02:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:03 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

David:

Nothing would make me happier than having to bow to your "I told you so's" next year.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:36 AM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: The Future of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
David:

Nothing would make me happier than having to bow to your "I told you so's" next year.
[... bowing]

Last edited by David_PA; 01-25-2008 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-25-2008, 09:09 AM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

You said: "What Ross Douthat says in this diavlog outta scare you silly, especially given your propensity to go down the scary road."

I think I said that the situation is grimmer for Republicans that anyone in the party wants to admit. The only hope is a libertarian approach (not that I personally like it) because the currrent "hook-up" generation, sexually libertine, socially liberal, with a live-and-let-live attitude towards homosexuality, is open to a litbertarian approach on exonomics. The problem is that if the Republican Party alienates the religious right, by taking an agnostic position on abortion, for instance, the party cannot win without those votes. I suspect that a few years of Hillarycare and attendant bureaucracy will make a difference. Obama is a different case, but time would tell whether he truly is transformative or just another programmatic big government liberal.

Regarding my tendency "to go down the scary road," I would ask, as opposed to what road? I do not think that I have gone down "the scary road" ro recognize where we seem to be heading, even though the destination is not yet clear to most people. By the time it is clear to everyone, it will be too late to do anything. As I have said, we will get denials that anything is wrong right up to the moment when we will be told, "There is nothing that we can do."

I once thought that our confrontation with Islam was like the irrestible force meeting the immovable object. But we seem to be willing to make significant accommodations to Islam for social peace and to feel good about ourselves. In a clash of civilizations, we lose, because we are prepared to move away from OUR civilization as far as necessary. We have seen abridgement of Western rights -- free speech, for instance -- that I would have thought impossible -- all in the name of "tolerance."

Not a SINGLE American newspaper published the cartoons of Muhammed (even for "informational" purposes), yet The New York Times felt free to publish a picture of a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with Elephant dung. Tolerance of what?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-25-2008, 11:23 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

jm:

Quote:
Not a SINGLE American newspaper published the cartoons of Muhammed (even for "informational" purposes) ...
I'll go along with you on that bit. I thought this was shameful behavior on the part of the MSM. Truly, they let the terrorists win that one.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-25-2008, 11:37 AM
cousincozen cousincozen is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 62
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

"...yet The New York Times felt free to publish a picture of a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with Elephant dung."

A Christopher Hitchens quote in a current article at VDare might provide a hint of an explanation for that: "These things, which of course disturb the faithful, are rather encouraging in that they show that a high moral character is not a precondition for great moral accomplishments." In other words, what about all the good things that Hitler did? But on the bright side, as Mr. Douthat points out, being identified with such moral desolation doesn't cut it with the, dare I say it, moral majority. Much to the consternation of the guardians of elite opinion, the slavering hoi polloi aren't THAT gullible.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-25-2008, 11:54 AM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

JM:

So, why don't you apply worst-case-scenario (aka scared) thinking to the global warming issue? The worst case there could be just as dire (as the ME issues) for your children and grandchildren?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-25-2008, 12:32 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

I don't object to The New York Times publishing the picture of the Virgin Mary. The point is that it is acceptable and considered "free speech" to publish anything critical of Christianity, yet the "proper respect" must be shown towards Islam and Muhammed. Isn't this the first step to dhimmitude?

Whatever happened to "freedom for the idea that we hate?" The goal is not that something critical of Christianity should NOT be published, but that Islam should not be immune from criticism or comment.

I fear that at some point, it will become socially unacceptable to SAY OR WRITE anything critical of Islam and Muhammed. This has already has a chilling effect on radio and television.

I am not a postulant in the new global warming religion. For secularists, it is a spiritual replacement for the failed god of communism since its collapse -- a way to restirct and pay penance for the success of capitalism.

Why is it that one possible "solution" to the emissions problem is to replace today's cars with fuel cell-equipped ones? Do you not realize that one of the consequences of fuel cerll cars will be water vapor emissions, and water vapor is a much more important "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a small component of the atmosphere. As I understand it, "global warming" stopped in 2001, and global temperatures have remained unchanged since then. Have emissions of carbon dioxide remained constant since then?

The UN panel is predominantly not climate scientists, but political representatives of governments. This is an attempt to do indirecly through environmentalism what the Left could not do through Marxism.

Last edited by jmcnulty; 01-25-2008 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-25-2008, 01:02 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

jm:

Quote:
I fear that at some point, it will become socially unacceptable to SAY OR WRITE anything critical of Islam and Muhammed. This has already has a chilling effect on radio and television.

I am not a postulant in the new global warming religion. For secularists, it is a spiritual replacement for the failed god of communism since its collapse -- a way to restirct and pay penance for the success of capitalism.
You off your meds again?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-25-2008, 01:24 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Reply to Bjkeefe:

Very clever. And so original. That is the kind of thinking and insight that we need.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-25-2008, 01:46 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Reply to Bjkeefe:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcnulty View Post
Very clever. And so original. That is the kind of thinking and insight that we need.
Thanks! I appreciate the shout-out!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:02 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcnulty View Post
The UN panel is predominantly not climate scientists, but political representatives of governments. This is an attempt to do indirecly through environmentalism what the Left could not do through Marxism.
Right. and of course ... the Right has no political agenda whatsoever in manipulating people like you, getting you all hopped up on war adrenaline, so you'll continually sound the alarm bells about the "Islamo Fascist" menace.

Last edited by David_PA; 01-25-2008 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:16 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

I haven't described an "Islamofascist" menace. What would YOU call it? As I understand it, the term is an effort to distance the terrorists from orthodox Isllam by describing the terrorists as "Islamofascist," combining elements of Islam with the threat of fascism. It is, at best, useful shorthand. I do not think anyone has got me excited about anything, as if I am just useful dupe who can be manipulated. My opinons about Islam come from a reading of the Qur'an and books about Islam, including one containing translations of the writings (intended for Muslims) of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Is it your contention that we should NOT educate ourselves about Islam? No one has pointed out factual errors in my depiction of Islam. Whether you want to hear it or not is something else.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:23 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcnulty View Post
I haven't described an "Islamofascist" menace. What would YOU call it? As I understand it, the term is an effort to distance the terrorists from orthodox Isllam by describing the terrorists as "Islamofascist," combining elements of Islam with the threat of fascism. It is, at best, useful shorthand. I do not think anyone has got me excited about anything, as if I am just useful dupe who can be manipulated. My opinons about Islam come from a reading of the Qur'an and books about Islam, including one containing translations of the writings (intended for Muslims) of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Is it your contention that we should NOT educate ourselves about Islam? No one has pointed out factual errors in my depiction of Islam. Whether you want to hear it or not is something else.
C'mon ... all of the sudden out of nowhere you decided to start reading about Islam and that had nothing to do with the anti-terrorist drumbeat that began after September 11th, 2001? You give Zawahire and Bin Laden so much credence - as if everything they think they can accomplish they will. They're rhetoricians leading a political movement and you're swallowing it whole. And, on top of that you're not self-aware enough to recognize the Right's manipulation of you. It's a double-duping whamy that has lead to your continual little-picture ranting.

Last edited by David_PA; 01-25-2008 at 03:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-25-2008, 02:54 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

I taught a course on Islam five years ago. I have been reading other books since then. I do not know what the "Repulican" policy on terorism is. I am very unhappy about some aspects of the Bush Administration's policy in this area (sich as Karen Hughes conducing "outreach" to the Muslim world). The only good thing that can be said about it is that it is not the willful blindess of the Democrats, who, like you, see terorism as, in the Rev. John Forbes Kerry's phrase, "a nuisance, like prostitution or gambling." John Edwards, a candidate for President who is still taken seriously, has called the war on terrorism a mere slogan for a bumper sticker. I do not know what Bin Laden or Zawahiri can accomplish. Before 2001, no one thought they could make a major attack on American soil. I just know what their intentions are. The current lull in attacks can be seen either as (1) proof that antiterrost operations are succeeding or (2) that attacks are being withheld until a disabling attack can be mounted. In contrast to the Japanese on December 7, Zawahiri (the real brains of the operation) realizes that September 11 had a bad effect for them -- it served to make us mad and, temporarily, vigilant. The next attack has to be both unforeseen and "disabling." I do not expect to convince you. When it happens, maybe you will be convinced. The fact that any political party happens to have a "political agenda" on an issue (when every political party seeks work out a "poliical agenda" on EVERY issue) is irrevelent.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-25-2008, 03:05 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Reply to David_PA

Quote:
I taught a course on Islam five years ago.
Now that's scary.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-25-2008, 03:17 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: Reply to wonderment:

I am always surprised at the rudeness of Leftist commenters. I do not care whether you find anything scary or not. Obviously, you find me more scary than terrorism. So be it. It would do you good to take a course on Islam, although you think yourself to be already so smart that you may be uneducable.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.