Children giving out free lemonade is destroying America

[wellington1869]

update on my analysis of my leftist brethren:

they apparently are suffering today from two things:

a) a basic crisis of confidence in their own values (for reasons yet to be determined).

b) some genuine lack of awareness of history (particularly modern middle eastern history on the one hand; and history of the emergence of the modern west and its values, on the other hand). This lack of awareness leads to an easy "us versus them" analysis ("oppressive" west versus "defensive" east? hah! thereby essentializing both sides) without many complications or nuances.

[Mental Hobbit]

i have yet to hear you call al queda both stupid and more dangerous than any western democratic stupidity.

Let me throw you a bone.
Compared to a major western democracy going nuts, Al Queda is very, very harmless. And their only seriously dangerous achievement is making western democracies go nuts.

[gr1m]

Wrong side of history? Again, take the idea that the US is always right out of your head. I was not born in North America so don't accuse me of being stupid because my world views vary from yours. Of course I am ignoring what you asked me to say because that's neither here nor there. This is a thread about America and not Al Qaeda.

My analogy is not the same as your Japan analogy because the nuclear bombing of Japan was in retaliation to a Japanese attack on the US. Invading Iraq was not. You're asking me to ignore the Iraq issue because we've already covered it before but in a thread discussing American political stupidity, assuming you're right and Afghanistan should be the real target, how can we ignore the fact that the US burned the wrong country to the ground?

I was born and raised in Dubai so again, what makes you think you know more about the Middle East than I do? I have family that lives in Lebanon and if you can name an Arab country, I've most likely been there. Again, we're from different parts of the world so do not tell me I am wrong and stupid because where I come from, you are wrong and stupid. There is no clear-cut right and wrong.

[wellington1869]

Again, take the idea that the US is always right out of your head.

it was never in my head; if you read my posts (including earlier ones in this thread itself) you'll see what a critic i am of the US.  My question to you is, why do you say the us is always wrong? Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to acknowledge that evil can come from the east, too?

so long as you refuse - and at this point you're simply refusing point blank - to say that, you're some kind of nationalist obviously, or have some kind of overriding loyalty to a religious or ideological position. and that would explain a lot.

so you really think evil has a single point of origin, located somewhere in north america?

 I was not born in North America so don't accuse me of being stupid because my world views vary from yours.

lol, no, i'm calling you stupid because you display an astonishing lack of awareness of basic history, either eastern or western history.

Of course I am ignoring what you asked me to say because that's neither here nor there. This is a thread about America and not Al Qaeda.

no, its a thread about america AND al queda, because world politics today is dominated by that conflict between them (and not just them; its al queda against the whole world which is the conflict in the world today).

You're asking me to ignore the Iraq issue because we've already covered it before but in a thread discussing American political stupidity, assuming you're right and Afghanistan should be the real target, how can we ignore the fact that the US burned the wrong country to the ground?

first they didnt 'burn it to the ground'; actually iraq held its first elections recently; funny how you dont see that side of things. I suppose you would have preferred iraq to remain a loose canon dictatorship, or be run over with terrorists and islamist warlords from iran and yemen (who in turn would slaughter each other in iraq?)

is that what you want?

I can reject the decision to invade iraq as flawed but I also wont romanticize what iraq was, nor will I only see a bad outcome for iraq today.  To do so seems awfully politically motivated on your part.

I was born and raised in Dubai

you'll pardon me if i say things are beginning to make sense

so again, what makes you think you know more about the Middle East than I do?

your refusal to admit that evil can arise out of the east as well as the west, makes me say that:
a) either you dont know history, regardless of  having lived there
b) or you're intensely politically or religiously motivated to lay the blame for the world's problems on a single point of origin. which is a very religoius thing to do, by the way.

I have family that lives in Lebanon and if you can name an Arab country, I've most likely been there.

and if you're still unable to recognize all the problems that these arab countries have, from their political regimes to their citizens regularly slaughtering each other, then all i can say is the governmental propaganda machines of some of these regimes really did a number on you.

 Again, we're from different parts of the world so do not tell me I am wrong and stupid because where I come from

again, you're not wrong and stupid because of where you come from -- lets be clear. You're wrong and stupid because of what you say (and refuse to say).

There is no clear-cut right and wrong.

Ah-HA -- you ARE a moral relativist -- which is what i wanted you to admit, and you've admitted it.

I dont think Ch is a moral relativist, but I know now that you likely truly are one. Thats the real point of difference between us.

And yes,  you're on the wrong side of history if you dont believe democracy is the future for these arab nations. I strongly get the feeling you do not want democracy to break out in any of these nations. And that too, explains a lot.

[kishy]

As long as it is possible for two people to have different views on what is moral, we're ALL "moral relativists" because there isn't some predefined standard set.

[wellington1869]

Let me throw you a bone.
Compared to a major western democracy going nuts, Al Queda is very, very harmless. And their only seriously dangerous achievement is making western democracies go nuts.

let me throw you a bone back: strange how you dont think that a religously motivated violent movement, which is global, and has demonstrated ability to attack bystanders in public places all over the world (not just against the west either), and which celebrates the killing of people different from them simply because they are different from them, and has expressed desire to attain nukes to do those attacks with nukes, and which enjoys the tacit backing of major powerful dictatorial regimes in asia  --  should be considered a serious and deadly threat by the world's democracies?

is that a threat on the order of what western democracies do? holy ****, you really think that?
you want to still consider yourself a liberal in any definition of the word?

[wellington1869]

As long as it is possible for two people to have different views on what is moral, we're ALL "moral relativists" because there isn't some predefined standard set.

what makes a moral relativist is someone who says "hitler can kill all the jews because those were his values" versus someone who says "hitler cannot kill all the jews simply because they think differently from hitler".

osama (and some misguided liberals) are of the former type; western liberals ought to be of the latter type.

see, it gets confusing (and moral relativists feed off this confusion) because tolerance and intolerance seem to be linked but arent really.

tolerance: everyone can believe what they want. Note that this is NOT moral relativism. because it is in fact taking a stand, and being willing to defend it (going to war, in fact, if necessary, to defend it). It insists there are many ways of doing things so long as all those ways respect the other ways. Because of that single caveat, this is not moral relativism; it is a system of morality.
It must be defended in the usual ways, including persuasion and pointing to its long term benefits and appeals to its logical coherency and applicability and etc. Obvious examples, buddha, gandhi, ben franklin.

intolerance: everyone cannot believe what they want, they have to believe what i believe. Note this is not moral relativism, it insists on one way of doing things and violently eliminates the other ways.  Obvious examples, hitler, bin laden.

moral relativism: anyone can do what they want,  including violently eliminate each other, and no one can criticize anyone else.  THIS is moral relativism, which creates an anarchic, nihilistic  world where anyone does what they want regardless of the consequences to others. It imagines a world that is not interconnected, not mutually interdependent, etc.  It actually makes no sense nor is it upheld by the evidence of all our mutual dependencies.  BUT its useful. Its useful for intolerant folks, as a cover for their aggressiveness ("i'm just doing what i believe so **** you") and as a way to escape accountability ("you cant criticize me because you're not me" (hyper nativism is one of the consequences)).

note that its not just misguided liberals and religious evangelicals who feed off the confusion of terms, who present intolerance under the cloak of tolerance.  TEA-PARTIERS today are doing the same thing (accusing the NAACP of racism while holding up racist signs. Why? "Because these are our values and so you're not being tolerant!") Of course they miss the point about tolerance entirely JUST LIKE MANY MISGUIDED LIBERALS HERE.

So many liberals today dont seem to realize how much of their values they share with tea partiers, how much they share with nihilistic anarchists - and with capitalist neo-liberals - when they misguidedly embrace such moral relativism, wrongly thinking that it protects them. It does not, it eliminates them.

[ch_123]

If that's what relativism is, then I am the exact opposite because I think they're all douchebags. My thoughts are more like "Saddam invaded Kuwait for oil, and that was bad. Bush invaded Iraq for..."

Oh wait, let's not get into that =P

[wellington1869]

I think they're all douchebags.

that i can respect

tho i'd still point out that douchebaggery itself is a spectrum, there are degrees and some degrees are far worse than others, and some degrees deserve more concern than others. So long as that is acknowledged, i'm fine with it.

If that's what relativism is, then I am the exact opposite

i know you're not a real relativist; but you sometimes dont acknowledge the importance of degree and that tends to get my goat. I'm all about being able to take degree into account, cuz otherwise it seems to me its a slippery slope towards relativism (if its not outright relativism). One of the guards against outright relativism, seems to me, is to always keep an eye on the question of degree and context (what i call 'perspective' above).

when we liberals righteously denounce evil in the world, we tend to do it in non-subtle terms, terms which generally obliterates context and degree, and i guess i've grown to be wary of such language because of my fear of where it can lead (ie, to relativism, which in turn is exploited by the hard right, turning all of us well-intentioned liberals into suckers and stooges for the hard right, and keeping us from being able to respond to the hard right, and contributing to the crisis of liberalism that i see in the world today).

[gr1m]

it was never in my head; if you read my posts (including earlier ones in this thread itself) you'll see what a critic i am of the US.  My question to you is, why do you say the us is always wrong? Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to acknowledge that evil can come from the east, too?

Like I said, this is a thread about the US. I never said evil cannot come from the East because it is not a topic of the thread.

so long as you refuse - and at this point you're simply refusing point blank - to say that, you're some kind of nationalist obviously, or have some kind of overriding loyalty to a religious or ideological position. and that would explain a lot.

I have an overriding loyalty to common sense.

so you really think evil has a single point of origin, located somewhere in north america?

No, where do you get that from? I am ethnically Armenian. My people suffered a genocide at the hand of the Turks so I do not believe that evil has a single point of origin in America. Nor do I believe that America is purely evil. I just believe that some decisions made recently by the US have been astoundingly stupid.

lol, no, i'm calling you stupid because you display an astonishing lack of awareness of basic history, either eastern or western history.

When have I displayed such a thing? My only point of view in this thread so far has been that Iraq was a mistake and even you agree with me on that.

no, its a thread about america AND al queda, because world politics today is dominated by that conflict between them (and not just them; its al queda against the whole world which is the conflict in the world today).

Fair enough.

first they didnt 'burn it to the ground'; actually iraq held its first elections recently; funny how you dont see that side of things. I suppose you would have preferred iraq to remain a loose canon dictatorship, or be run over with terrorists and islamist warlords from iran and yemen (who in turn would slaughter each other in iraq?)

is that what you want?

Don't kid yourself that Iraq has improved. It's still a warzone.

I can reject the decision to invade iraq as flawed but I also wont romanticize what iraq was, nor will I only see a bad outcome for iraq today.  To do so seems awfully politically motivated on your part.

Whatever Iraq was before the invasion, it's in a worse shape today.

you'll pardon me if i say things are beginning to make sense

I was waiting for you to realise that.

your refusal to admit that evil can arise out of the east as well as the west, makes me say that:
a) either you dont know history, regardless of  having lived there
b) or you're intensely politically or religiously motivated to lay the blame for the world's problems on a single point of origin. which is a very religoius thing to do, by the way.

I am not religious. A few posts ago, you called me a leftist liberal. Are you grasping at straws? Make up your mind. Evil can arise from everywhere and that is what you have trouble understanding.  

and if you're still unable to recognize all the problems that these arab countries have, from their political regimes to their citizens regularly slaughtering each other, then all i can say is the governmental propaganda machines of some of these regimes really did a number on you.

Oh I have. My last visit to Lebanon was marred by an Israeli invasion and I had to escape to Canada via Syria because the Lebanese airport was bombed. However, what you are saying is incorrect. In the United Arab Emirates, citizens do not regularly slaughter each other. Dubai is one of the biggest and most modern cities in the world. Do yourself a favor and stop revealing how astonishingly ignorant you are. Like I told microsoft windows once, your only view of Arabs is probably a suicide bomber screaming "ALALALALA!", which is simply not the case.  

again, you're not wrong and stupid because of where you come from -- lets be clear. You're wrong and stupid because of what you say (and refuse to say).

I am wrong and stupid because I refuse to say that the US is the gilded savior of our times ; there you have it folks, democracy.

Ah-HA -- you ARE a moral relativist -- which is what i wanted you to admit, and you've admitted it.

I dont think Ch is a moral relativist, but I know now that you likely truly are one. Thats the real point of difference between us.

Great, now you can stop floating between other conflicting things you like to call me such as liberal or religious.

And yes,  you're on the wrong side of history if you dont believe democracy is the future for these arab nations. I strongly get the feeling you do not want democracy to break out in any of these nations. And that too, explains a lot.

I never said democracy should not be the future of the world; I am only saying that the US should not be the future of the world. Also, democracy doesn't work in many Arab countries. Lebanese politicians for example cannot have meetings without strangling each other. You yourself claim that Arab citizens love slaughtering each other so tell me how democracy can work in such an environment? Again, look at Iraq before and after. Saddam was a brutal dictator but what he did worked because the Middle East is inherently different from the US, whether you want to see it or not.

[kishy]

Directed at nobody in particular...

[ch_123]

If you think we're stupid, then you're a retard.

I think you just proved his point.

[JBert]

Welly, did anyone ever say you talk too much? (apart from webwit)
There is discussing, and then there is being a filibuster. :-)

Regarding history: terrorists are of all ages, never did one win a major victory.
Problem is that ideas spread wildly these days, and Bin Laden is not so much dangerous as a person rather than the ideas and hate he spreads.
Luckily, he hasn't mobilized huge swaths of people, yet small militia are spread out wide and far.

[quadibloc]

how can we ignore the fact that the US burned the wrong country to the ground?

Iraq invaded Kuwait. It was driven out of Kuwait at the time, and Saddam Hussein was permitted to stay in power under strict conditions of dismantling all weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq did not, in fact, fully comply with those conditions. News coverage shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq showed how people rushed ahead of U.N. weapons inspectors to give advance warning to the sites they were going to inspect.

This sort of nonsense became absolutely intolerable after 9/11, since now it was at least possible that if Iraq had bacteriological or chemical weapons, it might give them to terrorists such as al-Qaeda. But Iraq did not reform its ways. It did not adopt a position of absolute and total compliance with weapons inspections so that we could be absolutely confident there were no WMDs in Iraq.

So instead the U.S. had to invade - setting the Iraqi people free from a hideous and cruel dictatorship, and with relatively little in the way of destruction and casualties - before it was possible to go over the country with a fine-tooth comb and not find any WMDs.

The U.S. cannot be faulted for Saddam Hussein's silly bluffing games.

Nor is the terrorism unleashed against Iraq's Shi'ite majority being carried out by Americans. The U.S. can be faulted for its unwillingness to ensure the safety of Iraqis in the power vacuum it created - by sending in sufficient troops to give the terrorists nowhere to hide. But the U.S. is a democracy, and so what can the politicians do if the American people will not stand for a draft?

[gr1m]

There are a few things I don't understand:

1) the world "liberal" is used as an insult; why?
2) the term "moral relativism" is used as an insult: why?
3) not being pro-US makes you stupid. why?

I haven't insulted you once yet you continue to insult me over and over. Is that really how you debate wellington? If so, I can't imagine people enjoy debating with you very much. Or that could just be my moral relativism talking.

[ch_123]

As far as I know, the US government admitted themselves that there was never any credible evidence of a WMD threat.

2) the term "moral relativism" is used as an insult: why?

Moral relativism says that crazy people should be allowed to perform female circumcision on little girls because 'that's their culture'.

Such logic completely undermines the credibility of our own laws and value systems.

[wellington1869]

wow, GH site went down for a few minutes. Maybe i pissed off someone in dubai

[wellington1869]

when we liberals righteously denounce evil in the world, we tend to do it in non-subtle terms, terms which generally obliterates context and degree, and i guess i've grown to be wary of such language because of my fear of where it can lead (ie, to relativism, which in turn is exploited by the hard right, turning all of us well-intentioned liberals into suckers and stooges for the hard right, and keeping us from being able to respond to the hard right, and contributing to the crisis of liberalism that i see in the world today).

Seems to me much of our crisis comes from this confusion of terms.

Liberalism is not relativism; its actually about taking a hard stand on morality (a morality of tolerance), being consistent about it (ie, criticizing intolerance as much in the east as well as the west, wherever we see it. we lose credibility if we arent consistent in that way), and its about taking the risks in the defense of it, and getting off our asses and lobbying for it as activists.

So its hard work being a real liberal. What i see around me is lazy liberals who embrace relativism instead of liberalism, because if they're relativists, they dont have to do any actual activism, dont have to stick their necks out and take a stand. Those are the liberals who criticize the west because they know they're relatively safe in doing so, and give the east a free pass; or criticize christianity cuz its quite safe to do so in our culture, and give extremist islam a free pass.  Thats just lazy, its lazy liberalism. And its misguided and leads to nihilistic relativism, not liberalism.

[gr1m]

As far as I know, the US government admitted themselves that there was never any credible evidence of a WMD threat.



Moral relativism says that crazy people should be allowed to perform female circumcision on little girls because 'that's their culture'.

Such logic completely undermines the credibility of our own laws and value systems.

Ah. It seems I did not understand the true meaning of a moral relativist. I actually am not one. I am against things like female circumcision, passion killings, burning women alive for dowry money, etc.

when we liberals righteously denounce evil in the world, we tend to do it in non-subtle terms, terms which generally obliterates context and degree, and i guess i've grown to be wary of such language because of my fear of where it can lead (ie, to relativism, which in turn is exploited by the hard right, turning all of us well-intentioned liberals into suckers and stooges for the hard right, and keeping us from being able to respond to the hard right, and contributing to the crisis of liberalism that i see in the world today).

Seems to me much of our crisis comes from this confusion of terms.

Liberalism is not relativism; its actually about taking a hard stand on morality (a morality of tolerance), being consistent about it (ie, criticizing it as much in the east as well as the west, wherever we see it. we lose credibility if we arent consistent in that way), and its about taking the risks in the defense of it, and getting off our asses and lobbying for it as activists.

So its hard work being a real liberal. What i see around me is lazy liberals who embrace relativism instead of liberalism, because if they're relativists, they dont have to do any actual activism, dont have to stick their necks out and take a stand. Those are the liberals who criticize the west because they know they're relatively safe in doing so, and give the east a free pass; or criticize christianity cuz its quite safe to do so in our culture, and give extremist islam a free pass.  Thats just lazy, its lazy liberalism. And its misguided and leads to nihilistic relativism, not liberalism.

I am definitely not a relativist. Like I said, I do not mind criticizing both the East and West. The only reason I am only criticizing the US in this thread is because the thread is about the US. Make a thread about the stupidity of Islam extremism and I'll have a lot to say on the subject.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Ah. It seems I did not understand the true meaning of a moral relativist. I actually am not one. I am against things like female circumcision, passion killings, burning women alive for dowry money, etc.

I would only support such things if they were being done to terrorists.

[gr1m]

I would only support such things if they were being done to terrorists.

Doesn't that make you a relativist?

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Does it?

[microsoft windows]

Directed at nobody in particular...

Show Image

Lol.

I've got to give old Wellington some credit though. He's the only real liberal I've met who can back up his arguments with actual information.


Now did you all ever notice how much better folks get along when they don't discuss politics and religion?

[wellington1869]

old Wellington

not that old

 actual information.

i'm just sick of lazy liberals. who want to think of themselves as righteous but wont do any of the work of figuring out what they actually believe in or why, let alone lift their asses of the couch and defend those values.  Or only do so when its easy, when nothing is at stake, when there's no real risk or danger, and thus only selectively uphold their values, and so become both inconsistent as well as hypocritical in the process (and totally lose credibility, as a result).  Is it any wonder liberalism is in crisis? We've become cowardly, lazy, inconsistent in applying our own values, and embracing ridiculous relativism cuz it gives us an 'out' every time.

Amazingly these are the same folks who enjoy the benefits of that liberalism so much in their home countries on a daily basis. But they implicitly help daily to undermine and destroy it with their inconsistency and laziness.  

It took 5 pages of posts to get grim to tangentially acknowledge that al queda might be bad. Thats the problem. But "herp-de-derping" on about evil america is no problem at all. It speaks to the problem of credibility at that point.

Lazy liberalism, cowardly liberalism, inconsistent/hypocritical liberalism. Stooge and sucker liberalism. Not liberalism at all, simply nihlistic relativism. Real liberalism is hard, is consistent, takes a stand, and takes risks. Real liberalism fought and won wwII. These arent liberals.

Now did you all ever notice how much better folks get along when they don't discuss politics and religion?

yea, what fun would that be

[gr1m]

It took 5 pages of posts to get grim to tangentially acknowledge that al queda might be bad.

We've been through this. I don't know why you slapped some requirement on me that to show that I wasn't an idiot, I had to place something in my post about Al Qaeda being bad, I don't know why you labeled me as a liberal when I am clearly not a liberal, and I certainly don't know why you are now claiming that people like me who claim to be liberals are in fact not liberals (keep in mind that you claimed I was a liberal and not me). The only reason you seem to be having a hissy-fit about me is because I refuse to acknowledge that the US is good.

For future reference, if you want me to acknowledge that Al Qaeda is bad, you could have said, 5 pages of posts ago, something along the lines of, "But you do agree that Al Qaeda is bad?" I would have immediately responded and been cooperative with that kind of respectful post. However, if you abrasively set your post up so that I look like an idiot no matter what I choose to say about Al Qaeda, it will only make me reluctant to put the fact that I think Al Qaeda is bad into writing. Don't patronize me. You know exactly what you did and yet you continue making me look like the idiot who thinks Al Qaeda is good.

[microsoft windows]

But the US is good.

[gr1m]

And if I disagree, I'll become an Al Qaeda lover and a terrorist and a relativist. God bless Americans.

[microsoft windows]

Now you're the idiot here thinking that Wellington, me and a few others are all there is in America.

[ch_123]

that i can respect

tho i'd still point out that douchebaggery itself is a spectrum, there are degrees and some degrees are far worse than others, and some degrees deserve more concern than others. So long as that is acknowledged, i'm fine with it.

i know you're not a real relativist; but you sometimes dont acknowledge the importance of degree and that tends to get my goat. I'm all about being able to take degree into account, cuz otherwise it seems to me its a slippery slope towards relativism (if its not outright relativism). One of the guards against outright relativism, seems to me, is to always keep an eye on the question of degree and context (what i call 'perspective' above).

when we liberals righteously denounce evil in the world, we tend to do it in non-subtle terms, terms which generally obliterates context and degree, and i guess i've grown to be wary of such language because of my fear of where it can lead (ie, to relativism, which in turn is exploited by the hard right, turning all of us well-intentioned liberals into suckers and stooges for the hard right, and keeping us from being able to respond to the hard right, and contributing to the crisis of liberalism that i see in the world today).

I don't think America is intrinsically evil in the same way Al Qaeda is, but it doesn't excuse the half-assed (such as Afghanistan, and the Gulf War were they could have taken out Saddam but didnt) and downright stupid things (like the later invasion of Iraq) that they have inflicted on the world.

I don't buy the 'World Police' philosophy, mainly because in attempts to provide seemingly simple solutions to complex problems, more problems are created. Who supported Saddam invading Iran for the lulz? Who backed the nice people in Afghanistan who went on to form Al-Qaeda? The list continues... It has been said above that America needs to combat its enemies - but it seems like America had a lot less enemies when it minded its own business.

[Rajagra]

Regarding history: terrorists are of all ages, never did one win a major victory.

Nelson Mandela got what he wanted.
(After turning the non-violent ANC into one that planted bombs and killed people.)

[ch_123]

I made this point in another thread. Whilst Mandela did a great job of not turning post-Apartheid South Africa into Zimbabwe Part II, the whole "the evil white man threw him into jail for fighting for black rights" reflects a complete lack of understanding of what actually went on...

[Oqsy]

[kishy]

I'm not sure if that's a correct use of Advice Dog.

There are numerous better-suited hipster characters who it'd work for though.

[Oqsy]

The meme of advice dog works with any bad advice as far as I know. I could have made it about dead hookers I guess...

[kishy]

Interesting...I've seen both bad and good advice given by Advice Dog and just assumed all bad use was incorrect.

Nevermind me, carry on.

[Oqsy]

To kishy with love:

[microsoft windows]

What about Ch_123?

[gr1m]

I also don't get why I'm being insulted and ch is being treated with respect when we both share similar views.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

ch has been around longer.

[kishy]

To kishy with love:

Show Image

;)

<3

[Superfluous Parentheses]

This thread has cemented my inclination not to participate in "off topic" threads that have anything to do with politics, religion or the US or Europe in general. I can get MUCH better arguments elsewhere.

[microsoft windows]

I also don't get why I'm being insulted and ch is being treated with respect when we both share similar views.

Both of your views are stupid so I make fun of both of you all.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

FINALLY I am not the only one to think this!

[ch_123]

The real fun I have is with your mothers. At the same time.

[kishy]

the real fun i have is with your mothers. At the same time.

"oooooooohhhhhhhhh snaaaaappp"

[ch_123]

Their fathers too. But that's a story for another night.

[wellington1869]

This thread has cemented my inclination not to participate in "off topic" threads that have anything to do with politics, religion or the US or Europe in general. I can get MUCH better arguments elsewhere.

dude if you think you have better arguments, by all means lets hear them. You cared enough to post in this thread so you must have something to say. Everyone's got an opinion.

we're just killing time you know. Its a slow thursday.

[ricercar]

I skipped the last 4 pages and missed nothing.

> the vast majority of pro-life people are 'Christian Al-Qaeda' types

whoo ho ha heh ha heh hah he ho ho ha he he ha ha ho.

[wellington1869]

There are a few things I don't understand:

1) the world "liberal" is used as an insult; why?

dude you've missed my point totally; i'm using 'liberal' as a point of pride. I'm a liberal and i'm proud to be one. Being a liberal is a compliment. Being a lazy liberal, on the other hand, is what i'm criticizing.

2) the term "moral relativism" is used as an insult: why?

absolutely, yes. Being a moral relativist in this day and age is the worst thing anyone can be.

3) not being pro-US makes you stupid. why?

thats just silly, I"m as big a critic of the US as anyone here. This isnt about being "pro US", its about being anti-terrorism -- and understanding the difference and keeping one's perspective when discussing it.

I haven't insulted you once

i'm not insulting you, i'm criticizing you, or specifically, that you seemed so reluctant to simply condemn terrorism. If you condemn it, thats great, but it bothers me that it took you so long.
Anyway i dont mean to single you out. I find that phenomenon among a lot of people who think of themselves as leftist and it always bothers me. Leftists should not hesitate like that to condemn terrorism. I find it interesting that some of them do, thats all.  I think it hurts the left, in general, when we hesitate to call obvious evil, evil.

let me ask you this: What do you think of pro-democracy activists -- arabs and muslims who are pro-democracy -- in the middle east? Or pro-democracy activists in china? Are they "traitors to their nations"? Are they simply "pro-US" and therefore evil? Are they "stooges of the CIA"?  Should they be lined up and shot because there is the possibility that their interests line up with the interests of the world's democracies rather than their home regimes?

What I find interesting is that a lot of my brethren on the left actually wind up hesitating to support them.  Why? I"m genuinely curious, cuz i think its a mistake not to support them vociferously.  As leftists we support pro-democracy activists at home, so why not abroad? Thats what I mean by consistency.

[kishy]

If there's one thing I can definitely say here it's that welly isn't half as nuts as the last day or two of messages would suggest. I think the problem is that the intensity with which he is wording things and pushing points kind of obscures what it is he's actually trying to communicate, which isn't half as extreme as it would appear.