Pelican Parts Forums - The Only Thing to Use is Fear Itself

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - The Only Thing to Use is Fear Itself (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/312953-only-thing-use-fear-itself.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Still dreaming of glory days for the cowardly Lions? They'll always be losers, well, untill the day Rodeo becomes a neocon. Wanna hold your breath? ;)

Even when we had Barry we sucked, but we had a reason to watch the games then. :D

Oh and Rodeo says he'll vote for the Neocons in 6-8 years when the libs get too fat and happy. I believe him..........oh, and the Lions will be SB champs that year as well:D

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but it does not affect the truth of the message. That piece was on the money, IMO. :cool:

Re: The Only Thing to Use is Fear Itself

Lest you think that I didn't read the peace, let me give you a couple of responses:

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
How Low Will Bush Go?
President's Scare Tactics Demean Politics and Voters

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 3, 2006

I've pointed out in earlier columns the difference between a leader who faces troubled times with a message of bravery and optimism -- Franklin D. Roosevelt's stirring words about the Great Depression, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," constitute perhaps the best example -- and a leader such as Bush who encourages people to be afraid because their fear is advantageous to him politically.

The speech given by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, USA President, on the world situation, given in Chicago, U.S.A. on 5 October 1937.

Quote:

The political situation in the world which of late has been growing progressively worse, is such as to cause grave concern and anxiety to all the peoples and nations who wish to live in peace and amity with their neighbors.

Some fifteen years ago the hopes of mankind for a continuing era of international peace were raised to great heights when more than sixty nations solemnly pledged themselves not to resort to arms in furtherance of their national aims and policies. The high aspirations expressed in the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact and the hopes for peace thus raised have of late given way to a haunting fear of calamity. The present reign of terror and international lawlessness began a few years ago.

It began through unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory in violation of treaties and has now reached a stage where the very foundations of civilization are seriously threatened. The landmarks and traditions which have marked the progress of civilization toward a condition of law, order, and justice are being wiped away.

Without a declaration of war and without warning or justification of any kind civilians, including women and children are being ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air. In times of so-called peace, ships are being attacked and sunk by submarines without cause or notice. Nations are fomenting and taking sides in civil warfare in nations that have never done them any harlot Nations claiming freedom for themselves deny it to others. Innocent peoples and nations are being cruelly sacrificed to a greed for power and supremacy which is devoid of all sense of justice and humane consideration.

To paraphrase a recent author, "perhaps we foresee a time when men, exultant in the technique of homicide, will rage so hotly over the world that every precious thing will be in danger, every book and picture and harmony, every treasure garnered through two millenniums, the small, the delicate, the defenseless-all will be lost or wrecked or utterly destroyed."

If those things come to pass in other parts of the world, let no one imagine that America will escape, that it may expect mercy, that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked, and that it will continue tranquilly and peacefully to carry on the ethics and the arts of civilization. If those days come, "there will be no safety by arms, no help from authority, no answer in science. The storm will rage till every flower of culture is trampled and all human beings are leveled in a vast chaos."

If those days are not to come to pass- if we are to have a world in which we can breathe freely and live in amity without fear-the peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort to uphold laws and principles on which alone peace can rest secure. The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts which today are creating a state of international anarchy and instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
How Low Will Bush Go?
President's Scare Tactics Demean Politics and Voters

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 3, 2006

Call me naive, but I never thought a president of the United States would stoop so low as to accuse current and prospective members of Congress -- a number of whom, by the way, are decorated war veterans, unlike Bush or anyone in his inner circle -- of being pro-terrorist. But this administration has so lowered the bar on political discourse in this country that it's now more of a limbo stick: How low can you go?

From a Wikipedia article about Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:

Civil liberties suspended

During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. All his actions, although vehemently denounced by the Copperheads, were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts.

Specifically..."Most Copperheads actively participated in politics. On May 1, 1863, former Congressman Vallandigham declared that the war was being fought not to save the Union but to free the blacks and enslave the whites. The Army then arrested him for declaring sympathy for the enemy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to imprisonment, but Lincoln commuted the sentence to banishment behind Confederate lines."

As far as giving additional weight to former generals in the opposition as opposed to the elected president with a marginal military record, let's not forget Lincoln's oppositon during the election for his second term during the Civil War. (Again from Wikipedia)

Quote:

The Democrats, hoping to make setbacks in the war a top campaign issue, waited until late summer to nominate a candidate. Their platform was heavily influenced by the Peace wing of the party, calling the war a "failure." Their candidate, former General George McClellan, was a War Democrat, determined to prosecute the war until the Union was restored. He was also willing to compromise on all other issues, including slavery.

Yes, the same McClellan who so vexed Lincoln when he was the senior general in the Union Army. To save you the trouble of looking up the outcome of the election -- McClellan was soundly defeated.

I guess this is the point where call Eugene Robinson "naive"

Quote:

Originally posted by jluetjen
***If Eugene Robinson chose to join us here to discuss his ideas, I know that I'd appreciate his contribution.

I know what you mean ... I so wish Thomas Jefferson were alive so we could read his writings without being "redundant."

I posted the op-ed piece because I thought it was interesting.

You attacked me because that's what Neocons do instead of discussing uncomfortable issues. THey attack. See above.

oops, now I see that after you slapped me around for posting the piece, you have now actually read it.

At least it got you thinking.

Obsessive-Compulsive.

A kid from my state was killed in Iraq this week.

Maybe by bad guys that we would have stopped if al Sadr had let the U.S. Army continue to man the Sadr City checkpoints.

Good thing the president is accusing Dems of coddling the terrorists. Otherwise, someone with a brain might conclude that giving them command and control over our military operations is perhaps not the best strategy to fight them.

Obsessive compulsive. Over 2800 dead, 21,000 wounded.

Time for more jokes daddy. I'll tell that soldier's family what a kick you get out of the whole Kingmaker thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

I know what you mean ... I so wish Thomas Jefferson were alive so we could read his writings without being "redundant."

I posted the op-ed piece because I thought it was interesting.

...

You attacked me because that's what Neocons do instead of discussing uncomfortable issues. THey attack. See above.

Thomas Jefferson is dead, and as a result all that we can do is study his thinking by reading the thoughts that he left in his writing. Eugene Robinson is alive and well as of 3 November, 2006, and so he can join us any time that he likes. Now if you are in fact Eugene Robinson, my apologies for the comments that I made about Rodeo's contribution to this forum. But given the fact that Rodeo attributed the piece to Eugene Robinson, I assumed that Rodeo and Robinson are two separate people. In which case my question (not an attack, but a question) stands --what have you Rodeo contributed to the discussion?

BTW, Help me out here....

What's a "Neocon"?

Could you define one for me? I'd like to compare your definition with my reality -- especially since you were speaking of me specifically.

Wiki has a definition John. Rodeo is a bit excitable, and I can sympathize with his reasons, even if he's becoming shrill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

where's my goddamn drink?!?!?

We ran out of guava juice. Will mango due? Oh, we'll also out of the little umbrella stirrers. Sorry. :(

2 more points for trying to hush Lendaddy by the old "paint em like a heathen" technique. You better hope that FastPat does not see your reference to the dead "kid" because he will ruin your effect by claiming that the soldiers are the heathens.

Rodeo's broken record of the week: Bush relinquished control... Bush relinquished control... Bush relinquished control..............

Bush relinquished control...

Or did he ever have it? :cool:

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Rodeo's broken record of the week: Bush relinquished control... Bush relinquished control... Bush relinquished control..............

And you position on this is?

I know the Kerry gaffe was much more important, but perhaps now you can tell us how this in in our national interests?

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

Time for more jokes daddy. I'll tell that soldier's family what a kick you get out of the whole Kingmaker thing.

OK, but remember it's all in the delivery. You gotta deliver "Kingmaker" with exuberance or the joke doesn't carry, so really hit that ending. I don't mind you using my stuff, just make sure you do it justice.

Let me know how it went.

BTW, I woudn't open with that one. Warm em up with some WMD stuff and maybe some Bush impressions first. It's not filler material, it's meant to close the show.

Len, what can I get you to drink? :)

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Wiki has a definition John. Rodeo is a bit excitable, and I can sympathize with his reasons, even if he's becoming shrill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

OK. That's a lot to digest, but let me pull out some of the more pithy descriptions of a Neocon and compare them to my beliefs.

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, -- Yes, I'm not a fan of communism, but I'm certainly not militant. I've never protest marched or demonstrated in my life. I certainly never felt that the US should have bombed Russia or China back to the stone age.

tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, -- OK, I'm there in that regard.
supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, -- Yup, that's me too.

and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action. -- Nope. I'm a firm believer in actively using the full range of diplomatic incentives.

Quote:

Ira Chernus, a professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.[5]

Nope. Not by a long shot. I'm nowhere near that uptight. I still have a big soft spot for the counterculteral artist types and look back fondly at the early David Bowie, The Sex Pistols and the Clash. The most important social value is certainly not strength, I'd have to say compasion and intellect in equal amounts.

Most people currently described as "neoconservatives" are members of the Republican Party, -- OK, but only marginally true. I'm hardly a flag waver of the Republican party.

but while neoconservatives have generally been in electoral alignment with other conservatives, have served in the same Presidential Administrations, and have often ignored intra-conservative ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or "paleoconservative" views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, and isolationist strain of American conservatism once exemplified by the ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan, -- Very true, I am not a big fan of those views.

(In particular, neoconservatives disagree with..)and the traditional "pragmatic" approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, which emphasized pragmatic accommodation with dictators; peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control; détente and containment — rather than rollback — of the Soviet Union; and the initiation of the process that led to ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States. -- Absolutely untrue of me. I've always been a big fan of the Kissinger style "realpolitic".

I guess at the end of the day, as a reasoning, thinking individual, I don't fit very well into the particular box that you are using to sterotype me. So let's just stop going there -- OK?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Len, what can I get you to drink? :)

Been riding GreyHounds lately, but the quality of the grapefruit juice is the thing. I like a little pulp and that's hard to find at a bar. Do you fresh squeeze? That's the best!

I think the issue is too complex to just claim that Bush relinquished control. I am sure many less than perfect things happen over there. Monday morning quarterbacking every news story that comes out of Iraq is pretty stupid IMO.

Your opinion of whether we should have gone in the first place seems like a legitimate thing to argue about, but when you voice your opinion about specific strategies in this large of an operation that is being run by professional military minds who are actually living it day to day. Well....
I don't give your opinions a second thought.

They are plainly just Bush bashing... Bush bashing.. Bush bashing.....
repeat... repeat... repeat....
Somehow I picture you as the lawyer on Boston legal that walks around all day with his hands glued to his pants and repeatedly blurting out odd sounds. I think he has OCD also.

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Been riding GreyHounds lately, but the quality of the grapefruit juice is the thing. I like a little pulp and that's hard to find at a bar. Do you fresh squeeze? That's the best!

Yeah, we've got the technology. :D