WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Historically, many of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were not in favor of invasion, but felt support for the President was necessary to get Saddam to back down (and said so at the time). So, the premise is faulty.
If they were weren't in favor of the invasion they should have voted against it. By voting for the invasion they put themselves on record as supporters of the invasion. If they were bluffing they lost.
This is what is called "historical revisionism", friend. It is ascribing positions today that are different to what occurred at the time. Most people, in Congress and in the public, believed Saddam Hussein would back down. The fact that he actually did was ignored by the Bush administration and did not become public until after the invasion occurred. Perhaps you remember that?
When, by the way, was there a vote for invasion? [Hint: there wasn't. H. J. 114 l] There was an authorization for the use of forceif necessary. The decision to invade was Bush's alone. To assert otherwise is revisionism. It is the kind of hyperpartisan factual manipulation that gives partisanship a bad name.
Last edited by NW Ponderer; 10/28/1902:01 PM. Reason: Add citation
To be honest, I actually admired Hatrack's assertion that conservatives CONSERVE things. Too bad HE didn't actually do much of that, but at least he recognized the concept.
Conservativism is cautious thinking, preservation of useful traditions, pragmatic application of tried and true tested ideas and values, honoring the pocketbook of the taxpayers, devotion to old fashioned customs, limited or simplified government.
By the way, things like honoring the military, patriotic love of country, devotion to God and family, none of those things are the exclusive province of conservatives, no matter how much they insist they are, no matter how often they label others outside the conservative circle as godless America haters intent on destroying traditional family models.
And there is no reason to be surprised to learn that one can encounter liberals who share certain conservative values either.
But the most important thing to bear in mind is the fact that conservatives and liberals need each other, because without the loyal opposition keeping the other side honest, the other side always gets weird.
And that's what's been happening this last decade or so.
Conservativism means Stop. It means NO. Put that technology down and get back in the closet, you horrible object. It means the good old days were when you caught polio at the neighborhood pool, because if that was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for us.
More recently, it has picked up the destructive conditioning meme of "the rugged individualist," which is the exact opposite of how humans work.
It's an ideology suited to the post-world war II era, and that's long gone.
More recently, it has picked up the destructive conditioning meme of "the rugged individualist," which is the exact opposite of how humans work.
It's an ideology suited to the post-world war II era, and that's long gone.
I daresay it didn't serve us all that well in the postwar era either. The New Deal is what served us well!
PS: Welcome to the madness. We are extremely glad you are here. PPS: I can help you with the Mayhem avatar if you want, but of course your current choice is awesome too.
Just lemme know.
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD deepfreezefilms.com
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
More recently, it has picked up the destructive conditioning meme of "the rugged individualist," which is the exact opposite of how humans work.
It's an ideology suited to the post-world war II era, and that's long gone.
I daresay it didn't serve us all that well in the postwar era either. The New Deal is what served us well!
PS: Welcome to the madness. We are extremely glad you are here. PPS: I can help you with the Mayhem avatar if you want, but of course your current choice is awesome too.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do realize that HAVING rugged individualists around is awesome, and sometimes a lot of fun.
But what we're hearing from the Ayn Rand/doomer/prepper faction is that we must ALL become rugged individualists, every last one of us, otherwise we are statist commies and we hate Murrikuh.
I wouldn't dream of ridding ourselves of our rugged individualists, but I personally don't think the bulk of our society can do it.
That's the reason why real R.I. types are so rare.
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD deepfreezefilms.com
Well, if we were all real rugged individualists there wouldn’t be an overpopulation problem. Capitalism wouldn’t plague us, either. But we would all have to be Finns...
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
I admit I am disappointed that such a rugged individualist has some friends that he counts on from time to time. A true RI would eschew friends, on principle.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
I admit I am disappointed that such a rugged individualist has some friends that he counts on from time to time. A true RI would eschew friends, on principle.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
