|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 168 of 404:
| 
Jan 1 20:15 UTC 2006 |
Most liberals here can admit that Clinton wasn't much of a liberal.
He paid lip service to many liberal positions, and some of the time he
did more than that. But it would be wrong to say that Clinton's core
convictions were liberal; indeed I'm not convinced that he even had any.
|
aruba
|
|
response 169 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:26 UTC 2006 |
I very strongly disagreed with Pres. Clinton on the land mine treaty.
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 404:
|
Jan 1 20:47 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 171 of 404:
|
Jan 1 21:11 UTC 2006 |
The hard thing is that all presidents have to pick their battles at
home. I seem to remember quite a few things that administrations have
tried to put throug that COngress wouldn't budge on. I'm not saying
that this is what happened here, but the fact is that the President does
not have absolute power, as much as many of them would wish it. And
there is something to be said about weighing the cost and consequences.
I'm absolutely against land minds, but if a treaty has provisions in it
that are frivolous or don't take into account certain needs of countries
that wish to sign it, the head of a nation has to take that into
consideration.
I do not think that Clinton was a classic Liberal, but neither do I
think he was a Conservative.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 172 of 404:
|
Jan 1 21:26 UTC 2006 |
Consider his national health care plan (even if the one suggested wasn't
the optimum): certainly a liberal concept.
|
scott
|
|
response 173 of 404:
|
Jan 1 22:39 UTC 2006 |
I'm confused by that "Clinton did something bad also" argument - does it mean
that if a previous President did something wrong, it's OK for future
Presidents too? Is W. Bush entitled to a free blowjob because Clinton got
one first?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 174 of 404:
|
Jan 2 00:47 UTC 2006 |
Good point. Actually, what the argument signifies is the person making the
statement is a knee-jerk Bushie unable to support or defend their position
on the merits. Kludgie and his ilk therefore hope to distract others from
recognizing the weakness of their positions.
|
gull
|
|
response 175 of 404:
|
Jan 2 02:31 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:161: They're a lot more eager to investigate this one than they
were to investigate the Plame leak. I wonder why that might be?
Re resp:171: He was a centrist, really.
I think conservatives like klg often make the mistake of assuming
Clinton is to Democrats what Reagan is to Republicans -- an almost
saintly icon who could do no wrong, and whose principles the faithful
believe the party should still be following. Clinton really isn't seen
that way in Democratic circles, particularly not the more liberal ones.
|
klg
|
|
response 176 of 404:
|
Jan 2 16:05 UTC 2006 |
Does Sylvia have any idea what a "classic Liberal" beliefs are? Or, for
that matter, does Curl? (Oh,no! I see Curl reaching for his
dictionary.) (By the way, what's a "land mind?")
So far, none of you has made any argument worth paying attention to. I
don't wonder why.
|
cross
|
|
response 177 of 404:
|
Jan 2 17:09 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 178 of 404:
|
Jan 2 17:17 UTC 2006 |
Isn't it one of those things that gets buried and 20 years later kills someone
who tries to farm the area? The 'anti-personnel' referring to it being just
the right size to kill a person.
|
cross
|
|
response 179 of 404:
|
Jan 2 17:22 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 180 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:42 UTC 2006 |
If you're talking about definition of a Classical Liberal, as opposed to
an american liberal or economic liberal, which most folks these days
refer to as a classical liberal outside of academic context, it refers
to the belief in the government role to defend individual freedom and
personal property and a defesnive rather than interventionit,
government. Probably closer to Libertarianism as opposed to modern
liberalism.
Is that what you wanted to know, klg?
klg, you whine about people insulting you and detracting from the
argument, and then you do the same thing. Make up your mind. You
continue on the track you've been on lately, and you'll be the one no
one pays attention to.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 181 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:48 UTC 2006 |
The Ottawa treaty would prohibit the use of the claymor with a tripwire,
but not a claymor that was detonated by hand.
Some land mines, like the ones the US Army uses, self-detonate.
Perhaps we can get a treaty to prohibit people from using guns in war.
Reminds me of a Star Trek episode where war was simply a computer
simulation and casualties were required to report to death chambers.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 182 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:51 UTC 2006 |
I think I remember that episode.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 183 of 404:
|
Jan 2 19:51 UTC 2006 |
Not when it first aired, of course.
|
keesan
|
|
response 184 of 404:
|
Jan 2 22:03 UTC 2006 |
Guns don't get left behind buried in fields and self-detonate years later.
|
cross
|
|
response 185 of 404:
|
Jan 2 22:53 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 186 of 404:
|
Jan 3 14:54 UTC 2006 |
There are a number of different types of anti-personnel land
mines. "Anti-personnel" just means they're not designed to disable a
vehicle.
They're not intended to kill anyone. In military terms, it's much more
effective to disable someone because it costs the other side manpower
and resources (money) to deal with an injured soldier. So, a year or 5
years after the military situation has changed, when a child steps on a
landmine while playing soccer in an abandoned minefield, it blows off
his foot and then the kid's family has to deal with a disabled child
and the kid has a ruined life.
|
klg
|
|
response 187 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:09 UTC 2006 |
Here's a story about a "liberal" of the Curl variety:
from the WSJ OpinionJournal.com
Prejudice
Black Republicans should be able to live without fear.
BY TED HAYES
Monday, January 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are
vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle
Tom, sell-out, Oreo--the list of slurs is long.
But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique,
progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the
Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who
call the Dome Village home are being "evicted" from privately owned
property after 12 1/2 years--apparently on account of my political
beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless
activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of
President Bush.
Here's how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address
a local Republican Women's Club; my landlord read an article in the
local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice
raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330. Shocked,
I inquired as to the seriousness of the change, and the property owner
blurted out that the cause of our "eviction" was "because you are
Republican." He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and
the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.
And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and
tolerance.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 188 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:44 UTC 2006 |
KLG is nuts. I would support this Republican's charitable activity. I just
wouldn't vote for him if his politics follow those of Bush et al. (I am
surprised, though, that he isn't already receiving grief from his fellow
Republicans for doing a liberal thing - being charitable.)
|
klg
|
|
response 189 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:49 UTC 2006 |
Do you also support the liberal charitable "activity" of the Democratic
landlord??
|
rcurl
|
|
response 190 of 404:
|
Jan 3 17:53 UTC 2006 |
Of raising the rent as "retaliation". No, I don't support any
vindictiveness. Remember? I'm a Liberal.
liberal (adj). 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart;
bountiful. 2. Appropriate or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3.
Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed, as in
religion; inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to
monarchical or aristocratic, as in politics; broad, popular, progressive.
illiberal (adj.). 1. Not liberal; not generous in giving; parsimonious. 2.
Narrow-minded. 3. Lacking breadth of culture; hence, vulgar.
|
richard
|
|
response 191 of 404:
|
Jan 3 18:04 UTC 2006 |
klg is also quoting a wall street journal op-ed column, not a news
story but a column. There is a big difference. And a column from a
very conservative newspaper at that.
|
edina
|
|
response 192 of 404:
|
Jan 3 18:24 UTC 2006 |
Re 190 Would you suggest calling klg an illiberal as opposed to a
conservative?
|