Friday, August 12, 2005

Top 10 reasons the Bush daughters wont join the Army.

10: They are fighting the war of ideas on the home front... oh wait. Thats Jason Matteras' excuse.
9: All that sacrifice talk is great, as long as its just Karen Hughes talking.
8: Have you ever tried to down a shot in the middle of a sandstorm? Blech!!
7: Everybody they have ever known except for grandpa avoided combat. Why should they be any different?
6: Join the Army? What could possibly be more patriotic than playing quarters while wearing a flag pin?
5: If one of them questioned policy while in uniform Rove would "out" their entire unit.
4: They really want to join up but desert sand khakis just don't match their hair.
3: They'll enlist just as soon as god tells daddy they should.
2: How do you spell city jail in Arabic? Abu Graib.
1: It would be very uncomfortable for daddy if one of them died and Laura wanted to talk about it.

Welcome to the blogosphere, I'm relatively new myself. I found your blog while searching for liberal sites to understand what makes one liberal.
What I have found so far is hatred of Bush and the "right-wing". I like the title of your blog and great tag line, but the first post I saw was a personal attack on the president's daughters. I did not see much fact.
I would really like to know how you would define the liberal view?(honestly no sarcasm)
PS: I think the "bird" in the KJV was just referring to flying things, not our current definition of animal classifications.
You my friend are the 1st poster in my new blog and for that I really appreciate you.

I do hope the humorous entries in my endeavors are not taken for some type of factual type commentary. I mean Scott McClellan obviously has never interviewed Baghdad Bob, who as I understand is currently living in Syria. The humor is an attempt to point out certain hypocricies from the right as I see them without making everything so serious.
The liberal view as I would define it would consist of the application of facts to politics. On a case by case basis this normally leads me to side with the liberal side of a given argument. I'm not blindly liberal on all issues because I believe what is considered the liberal side is occasionally not supported by the evidence. The example that pops to mind would be the use of ethnic nicknames by sporting teams. It seems to me if the nickname is such that it gives a positive light to the ethnicity involved and they dont seem upset by it, that would be ok. The Fl. St. Seminoles seem to have the backing of the tribe in this matter and I would support their right to have this name. I believe the clasically conservative viewpoint in the war on drugs is to have the govt. not involved in running a persons affairs and for legalizing drugs. I would support that, and certainly not because I'm a drug user, but because the facts as I see them support the futility in the war on drugs.

The reason I come across as so hostile to the right and the current administration is that I believe they go forth and administrate based upon a blind reading of idealism. The facts be damned, we will create our own reality. Thats fine I suppose until actual reality inserts its ugly visage and then its time to pay the piper. Blindly cutting taxes on the wealthy has never led to balancing the budget. When we invade other nations we will not be greeted as liberators unless we ourselves are ousting an invader and intend to leave that country forthwith. Thats just common sense and to controvert those truths based on idealism is to invite disaster.
I really do appreciate you for being the 1st to post and will check your site out after posting this response. :)
One other thing. Other translastions of the bible do differentiate between birds and flying things regarding my 1st post. Thats why I'm so careful to distinguish that it is the KJV I'm addressing. That version clearly does not make the distinction. And that version is also thought by many to be the infallible word of god. If they are to contend thats the case they must own up to that incongruity in their argument.
You said: The liberal view as I would define it would consist of the application of facts to politics.

This is interesting, because I think all parties should start with facts(though even facts can be debated). The first major differentiation is found in analysis. The greatest divisions are found in conclusion. (One of the best level headed arguments I've observed are between Brooks and Shields on Jim Lehrer)

Honored to be your first poster. My wife and I thought your comment about discussing politics with your girlfriend was hilarious. We agree on most things, but she still does not like to discuss politics with me.
I would contend the right actually is more concerned with the application of faith to politics. It was an article of faith fostered by the Iraqi exiles and the neocon agenda that Iraq would turn out well even though that notion should have been disproven by the simplest unbiased analysis. Indeed that notion was discarded with Bush 1. Where is the factual analysis with the rights obsession with cutting taxes as a method to lower the deficit? Or the so called fix for social security? Global warming... intelligent design in science class. These are all examples where the right has articles of faith disproven by imperical evidence yet they insist on plowing forward with their agenda to the harm of the nation.
You bring up some great topics for debate, but conservatism and liberalism are approaches to property rights, economics, social policies, the constitution, and foreign relations. It is much broader than the specific issues listed above.
It is true that politics covers more than the several issues I mentioned previous, but those are the hot issues of our times. I would find myself more in agreement with the classical libertarian view of conservatism than with the neocon view. There are good arguments for the classical small government arguments which my populist tendencies ofttimes sympathizes with. The drug war is very much an example here. But to me the neocon agenda is insisious. They seem to favor a massive government geared for the improvement of the wealthy. They apparently have no use for fiscal responsibility. They have no compunctions in using national crisis' to shrink personal freedoms, which is anathema to the libertarian. So overall when talking of conservatives I tend to break the category into neocon and libertarian, and would hold my fire generally on the libertarian point of view. I find their arguments intellectually stimulating and challenging. I tend to find the neocon arguments more base and non-realistic. But as stated previously, regardless of the argument or who I'm debating, I generally tend to find the liberal side of the given argument better founded in factual reality.
insisious = insidious in the above post :P
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]