Germany: The German press erupted in criticism for American politicians on Tuesday. Der Spiegel Online proclaimed, “A superpower has paralyzed itself,” while The Welt predicted “fatal consequences” that could damage the U.S. recovery. The Zeit newspaper blamed a “handful of radicals,” stating, “A small group of uncompromising Republican ideologues in the House of Representatives are principally responsive for this disaster. They are not only taking their own party to the brink, but the whole country. Unfortunately the leadership of this party has neither had the courage nor the backbone to put them in their place.”
Sullivan is on a roll!"Henry Fairlie way back in 1980:'Just as Americans in general do not have the habits of deference, so the conservative in America does not have them either. Ultimately he does not defer even to the country’s institutions. If one of these institutions, such as the Supreme Court, makes decisions he detests, he will defame that institution. He is as ready as is the common man to bypass the institutions he ought to defend.'The American conservative is being revealed right now as the purest form of political vandalism known in the Western world. It is emphatically not conservative. Conservatives try to reserve constitutional order; today’s Republicans seek to destroy all such restraints and any form of moderation."
This type of Man on the Street interview has been used over and over by tele-journalists to "prove" just about any point the interviewer (or his bosses rather) wants to make. I'm sure the results of these confrontations are heavily edited to create a particular impression. FOX News, which I know most here at P.E. love to despise, does this kind of thing all the time.Frankly, I think it's cruel and degrading to trap ignoramuses into revealing just how inane and uninformed they are on national TV -- or any other public venue. It's reminiscent of bear-baiting and the like. On a level with those hideous emails that show candid shots of "Walmart People." (If you've never seen one, consider yourself extremely fortunate.)What absolutely terrifies ME is that these poor, well-meaning imbeciles have the right to VOTE.THAT should worry EVERY thinking person of ANY political persuasion.So what do YOU prefer, by the way, PASTA or MACARONI? §;-D
These people are either being paid to sound this ill informed or this county is indeed in grave trouble.Why? Because, if there are a lot of people this ill informed in the country there is no way this democratic republic can survive much longer. We are ripe for the picking and a dictator can't be far behind. And... we will deserve whatever it is we get as a nation.
Keep the government out of my Medicare!
It embarrassing how stupid we teapublicans are.
Anon's last comment rings a bell. Had a brief conversation with a local vacuous individual of questionable intellect.... he railed against Obama for 'not negotiating', spouted how the ACA wsas a much better deal than Obamacare, said Obamacare was the next step towards socialism, and then went on to say he hoped to get a increase in his Social Security Disability payments. sheesh.
Shaw,I am not inclined to bash all conservatives in broad strokes. There was a time when the word 'conservative' was also synonymous with the words 'caution’ and ‘go slow.’ It was an approach to governance that said: ‘Do not rush headlong into grandiose prescriptions that may have unintended consequences.’ Cautious conservatism was not necessarily anti-progressive.According to John Dean, there are at least 2-dozen schools of conservative thought, some in clear contradiction and often in conflict with others. Some strains of conservatism are decidedly authoritarian and antithetical to the ideals of a free and egalitarian society.Neo-conservatives (such as Perl and Wolfowitz who sold a bogus war to the American public) are the opposite of Andrew Bacevich, the conservative author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.What passes for conservative today is not conservative at all. A government shutdown smacks of radicalism and recklessness, certainly not caution.Statements like this are cause for alarm: “What absolutely terrifies ME is that these poor, well-meaning imbeciles have the right to VOTE … THAT should worry EVERY thinking person of ANY political persuasion.”This is an example of extreme authoritarian, social-controlling conservatism - one that reserves the right to confer citizenship only on like-minded people, i.e. the right to decide who is worthy versus who is not, including but by no means limited to the right to vote. This is a prescription for bias, oppression, and ultimately tyranny.In 2008, the offspring of several prominent Republicans crossed party lines to support then-candidate Barack Obama. These include: Christopher Buckley (son of William F. Buckley), Julie Nixon-Eisenhower (daughter of Richard Nixon and granddaughter-in-law of Dwight Eisenhower, Susan Eisenhower (granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower), CC Goldwater (granddaughter of Barry Goldwater), as examples. These are conservatives with a conscience, and I am grateful for their support.
Moderate conservatives? Nowhere in the Republican party today.
Risking everything to fight a revolution for independence against perceived tyranny was certainly not an exercise in cautious moderation, was it? Rather it was -- guess what? -- RADICAL, RECKLESS, REBELLIOUS and DISRESPECTFUL of AUTHORITY in the EXTREME, wasn't it?Likewise prosecuting a CIVIL WAR for dubious, illegal, then-unconstitutional objectives whose outcome left 635,000 men dead, and countless millions of others maimed, blind, diseased, mentally ill, widowed, orphaned, homeless, and oppressed by dire poverty for many generations to come would not qualify as an act of judicious moderation, and meek subservience to Established Order either, would it?There was nothing tepid, cautious or restrained about mustering up the courage and ambition to open up the American West by pitting one's individual strength against the wilderness either, was there?What people of my severest critic's ilk, apparently long for is pusillanimous subservience, unconditional surrender, placid acceptance, and a meek knuckling under to the Iron-Fisted Rule of Standards Set by the Lowest Common Denominator.NO THANKS, BUB! It is YOU who are the scary one, not I -- YOU and your infuriating aura of insolence, haughty condescension, self-righteous bigotry, and imperious intolerance.It never occurs to you, that there may be flaws in your OWN pet beliefs, does it? Everything undesirable in this world occurs, simply because there are still too many people still do not think as you do. If everyone had the good sense just to fall into line and let YOU tell them how to live, we'd achieve Heaven on Earth in no time.BAH HUMBUG!
FT....did you take your meds today.
//There was nothing tepid, cautious or restrained about mustering up the courage and ambition to open up the American West// .... and killing 90% of the original inhabitants of the region
Free Thinker said... "Risking everything to fight a revolution for independence against perceived tyranny was certainly not an exercise in cautious moderation, was it?Rather it was -- guess what? -- RADICAL, RECKLESS, REBELLIOUS and DISRESPECTFUL of AUTHORITY in the EXTREME, wasn't it?"Indeed it was. For the times it was most progressive. In fact I've had conversations with individuals that believe the drivers of the revolutionary war were TERRORISTS,... by today standards certainly.Certainly the founders were not reactionaries or conservatives. They would more likely than not, given their intellect, be neither today were it possible they could return to this earth and teach us a few things about governance.Principles to be both timeless and valuable must be flexible enough to adapt to the changes of time and growing information and knowledge. I could be wrong of course but I believe that is why the framers gave us the amendment process.And here we are drawing lines in the sand, AGAIN, and for political expediency and party gain, rather than solving real life problems.For an intelligent people we can be pretty dense at times. And regardless what the partisans have to say it is an affliction within both parties.
FreeThinke: “ Dictators, socialists, communists, Marxists, Fabian, power-hungry, “threadbare, smelly and ready to be cast onto the scrap heap.”FreeThinke: “ I'm NOT going to accept insolence, belligerence, specious twisted logic, mischaracterization of my motives, willful misunderstanding and outright mendacity as a proper response to anything I might have to say.”FreeThinke: “YOU and your infuriating aura of insolence, haughty condescension, self-righteous bigotry, and imperious intolerance.”In other words, examples of narcissistic rage simply because I disagreed with you; simply because of your hypersensitivity to criticism – real or imagined; simply because you detest people who refuse to put you on a pedestal and lay ego food at your feet; simply because you pretend to be more than you are with an inflated sense of expertise; simply because you lack self awareness of your words and lack empathy for the people you offend. Your misplaced words, off-topic drivel, and off-topic doggerel do not advance a partisan cause; they merely mask a disturbed and troubled personality.
Post a Comment