Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"
???.Then you must be a real skilled mind reader, (I'm not)??.. Yer posts indicate that you are a very hard right somewhat intollerant idealist that tends to reject anything left of the ideal??????????? I guessed you would have a great deal of trouble with that challange: Skinny. Thanks for trying????. I hope you are content to beoch n' moan from the unhappy sidelines for the rest of yer life.?
Now be careful with your own ?psychobabble?. Don?t play so offended by me using ?in denial? and you continue on the same way. Maybe I should expected more from someone who would argue the paint off a barn door and start one-sided political threads to do more than poopoo me away with ?we?ll just agree to disagree? and then take a final pop-shot.
Or maybe I shouldn?t and accept that you?ll use the ?overly sensitive card? when debate gets tough.
It takes far less effort for me to ?beoch n' moan? about the Democrats AND the Republicans then your ?beoch n' moanin? about the Democrats, less keystrokes too.
My perceived happiness is off topic but I assure you, political debate is purely sport with me.
?????That is why I do feel GWB knows how to 'govern' or he never would have won reelection in 2004 with the first actual majority since 1992????? I tend to cornclude that what I believe is a fact: that GWB knows how to govern.????? I would prefer an imperfect Ronald Reagon to a fatal Jimmy Carter, or an imperfect GWB to a fatal John Kerry.??????.
Don?t confuse GWB?s two election wins with his ability to govern. When it was people like you and I and our neighbors, certainly the majority, holding their noses at the polls.
The losses at the last midterm elections, a less than 30% approval rating, along with several other blunders you?ve already admitted to are ?actual results?. On one of my posts above you agreed with me more than not. Those things you had issue with had nothing to do with ? actual results?.
Remember, ?don?t fight the tape!?
?The finished package must compromise to get a big enough tent to win. I tend to let Pols sort themselves out to the point where I support the one that most agrees with my preference, (that has a chance of actually winning; which seems to be the major difference between you and I). I then do not hammer them from my idealistic point of view once they get there. I hammer the looney left not the people on "my team" even though they may be as far appart as you and I seem to be. I don't argue with your ideals: Skinny, I probably agree with them. I just don't think canabalism serves any purpose other then letting the Left win.?
If the people wanted compromise McCain would have been voted in.
Again, the Republican wins of the house in the ?90?s and of the Whitehouse in 2000 were not from a compromise. They were because of substantive conservative principals.
The Contract with America and Conservative talk like what was used in GWB?s 2000 election.
I didn?t vote for all these guys to rip apart the Contract with America, grow the government and all I ?hammer? them about.
I haven?t changed my political principals, THEY have, and it is my duty to ?hammer? them when they stab the citizens in the back.
Yes there are several major differences between you and I. Absolutely to the point that I see you as part of the problem. I hammer; you condone, compromise and start one-sided political threads in support of them.
We got to this point in our government because of electing the lesser of two evils and because of compromising principal when it isn?t even necessary.
I?m not so rigid that I won?t compromise but with something like principals I?d rather cut the hypocrisy and dig deeper.
That sir isn?t cannibalism.
??..then we would need to reduce our living standards considerably. The world will not just give us their oil. We need to bring something to the table and isolation would just give us a deflationary depression and a world war for scarce resources. That's my opion: Skinny, (which I can support). We can just agree to dissagree. BTW: there is NO CHANCE of that type of politician ever winning a presidential election in your or my lifetime?.?
Possibly the most self-serving opinion of all. And it speaks so clear of where those compromises in your political principals are cheaply spent.
Our standard of living has had an anchor placed directly on the backs of the middle class for decades because of our foreign policy (an opinion I can support).
IT ISN?T OUR OIL, it?s theirs. They?ve never given it to us and it?s vastly more expensive now. And I?m not even talking about monetarily.
Those that have it in the Middle East hate us, even those that aren?t shooting at us.
If you don?t like the word ?imperialism? then substitute it with ?involvement/doing business/ foreign aid/ bribeing/policeing/babysitting/occupying/fighting/dying/threatening/negotiating?.
Take any of those words OMR, dazzle me with your political savvy, read the ?tape?, and show me where they will work with our enemies in the Middle East. ?Actual results? would be different if we fought them to their surrender, but you accept the political compromise instead.
Anything other than a complete bloodbath till their surrender or total isolation of them by us will result in them ALL shooting at us (everlasting war) AND a loss of their oil anyhow.
Any old measly ?deflationary depression? is a small price to pay for victory and a heck of a lot more CORNservative, practical, and moral then stuffing our enemy?s pockets with cash. Sacrilege I know to an investment broker, but good for America.
And I agree that an old Conservative President probably won?t be elected anytime soon, if ever.
Instead we?ll have 8% voter turn out, a socialist government, absolutely no industrial/manufacturing base, overwhelming taxes and monumental governmental/political induced burdens placed on our children.
If any lesson could be learned here OMR, it would be to think twice before starting one-sided political threads. Sooner or later you will be exposed to the hypocrisy you bring and eventually the sting of its burden on thin skin. (?they call that philosophy?)
