Hat tip: Wally Ballou.
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
17 comments:
Obama extreme? That's a good one in my book. Wait until the Republicans try and re-assert their agenda. The trend downward will accelerate and many will see that what they perceive as greener grass is really painted asphalt.
To me it is a farce to maintain that Republicans care about average people. They care about power and using whatever means they can to manipulate and maintain it. Democrats have become too much like them.
As such, no one cares about or advocates for regular people. But I think it is fantasy to think that Republicans will lead us any better, and it likely will be worse.
That's an interesting opinion:
To me it is a farce to maintain that Republicans care about average people.
1. Can you give three examples of this assertion?
2. Can you give three counter-examples of how Democrats care about "average people"?
Democrats control all the large cities in this country and those cities are failing.
Union leadership is overwhelming Democrat and they are driving municipalities into bankruptcy.
Democrats control higher education. Only five percent of college professors admit to being conservatives, and they usually don't have tenure. They are mostly in the hard sciences and math.
Democrats control the media. Over 80% of them admitted to being liberal or very liberal.
Democrats control the bureaucratic machinery in the various forms of government -- from libraries to social service agencies, to fiscal managers.
Republicans and Conservatives have learned to fly under the radar and keep their mouths shut.
An interesting factoid I picked up from a librarian-blogger some years back: the ratio between Republicans and Democrats among librarians is 17:1, or at least this was the case four years ago. As libraries begin to close, their allegiances may change.
Or they may, like you have here, make assertions about what harm the Repubicans did that caused them to lose their jobs.
I don't think Republicans stand their ground with any integrity, though there are a few exceptions. However, the rampant socialism among the Dems has caused, among other things, the rise of the Tea Party.
For every action, etc...
Dymphna,
Don't expect the reasoned facts to appear...
The eye that alters, alters ALL...
I would disagree to the extent that, the only thing worse than a RINO Republican is a Democrat.
When push comes to shove, true Republican principles reflect the ideas of the Founding Fathers than that of the Democrats.
To gauge what a party really stands for, one has to look at the grass roots level, who really hold the future of the party and the country in its hands.
I wouldn't trust grass root Democrats to run a dog pound much less anything else.
Even though I am a Democrat, I did not puff them up and believe that they have become way too much like the Republicans. I am not enamored with them either and see no purpose in defending them.
However, to say there is rampant socialism, when health insurance and oil companies and banks dominate our lives, is a big stretch. Name me one socialist country where 40 million citizens are uninsured.
All I said is that Republicans are as extreme in my book, and this is shown when they control government, and their cynical manner of politics.
The economic crisis, and the misery it has caused to many average people, came to fruition under the watch of our Republican benefactors.
Tax cuts enabled those at the top to get more than a fair share of the pie.
Republicans have been at the fore to cut from education funding, like student loans, and already underfunded social services. Defense contractors, in the other hand. Halliburton, Blackwater, not to mention other corporations, receive welfare, courtesy of the Republican worship at their altar, now Democratic worship as well.
What about their love to make corporations have all the rights of people yet not important responsibilities we have?
As an aside, NYC is not run by a Democrat. And last time I looked, Rupert Murdoch was certainly not in the Democratic or conservative pockets. And will the Tea Baggers just give up their Medicare and Social Security and other benefits of government? This view of government as evil incarnate does not benefit average people who rely on government.
Then there are the "values" issues where, to me, it seems to have some of the same tendencies that this site opposes from others. I don't care for someone to preach values to me when they cannot follow their own preachings.
I think if Republicans win, they will again show their ugly side in the way they act and the way they will govern. But Democrats have tried to emulate them in too many regards, due to the pervasiveness of the MONEY and lack of any real accountability. When Democrats regain the strings of government, the question is whether they will have learned any lessons to address their inabilities to lead.
I am not coming here for domestic US politics, which is a mess because it is lost its democratic legitimacy no matter who is in charge. However, to say that only Democrats are responsible completely misses the mark in my mind.
Hope that helps show what I meant about the issue of extremism.
KGS,
There are different strains to the political philosophy that became embodied in our government. Much has to do with practice.
I believe that Democrats have placed too much emphasis on the community aspects of democracy. It's easy to emphasize liberty, especially when society treated you and yours well. But looking at my liberty says too little about my neighbor's misery. Here is where Republicans, in my view, drop the ball, while Democrats have too many cooks which prevents the meal from getting done or tasting good.
@oldschool
Average people who depend on government?
Who is that? I am certainly average American and would feel ashamed to say i am dependant on the government and if i was, then that would be an indication something is wrong, not that it is a necessary or unchangeable part of reality. I would never put it that way, to do so is to cover over many issues and hidden presuppositions. In other words the way you speak conceals knowledge rather than helps spread it. For example if some people do depend on government what does that mean? Is that a good thing? if they do shouldn't we seek to change that? And ask ourselves, how that came about? Shouldn't people be enabled and taught to depend on themselves and the help of their families friends and neighbors through free association. If people do depend on government, why should that be and isn't it because the government is making it that way, in effect making us coloni, or serfs.
Republicas in theory are benefactors and do care about the average man by promoting, believing and teaching the dignity of man, defending freedom and limited government which are true liberal and enlightenment principles. They love the common man by leaving him alone and setting him free, respecting him and expecting results. The words and description you use in connection with Republicans are their political opponents caricatures of enlightenment and classical liberal policies which would seem to indicate that the modern day Democrat party is not following Western tradition and is not about liberalising but making them dependant on the government ie. them.
About the ad. It shows evolution and adaptations but for me it lacks something. It doesn't show clearly enough why and how Obama is an extremist. The style, format and sound effects were all good but the writing was poor in that it was not hard hitting . Of course this is one mans opinion. I would prefer something along the line of Zensters writing and rhetorical flair or perhaps the Barons.
We just have a different perspective on who Republicans identify as the common man. I see how former Democrats turned Republican acted in the civil rights area and wonder how how that compares to human dignity.
I don't say that government is there to be relied upon, exclusively, so please do not mischaracterize my gist. However, to deny that we do rely on government for a myriad of things, in our country of 350 million, is problematic to me.
The Founding Fathers created this government, so government is not so necessarily evil as portrayed. It can certainly run better, but much of the problem is due to the corporate influence over government.
Much of what you wrote about dignity is part of liberal ideology, so it's inaccurate to imply that these are Republican only values, so far as I am concerned.
Hey oldschool,
what dignity is there and what freedom in depending on the government? How can one believe in and promote the dignity of man when you teach you are a helpless victim, you are not responsible for your own decisions
Michael,
Please do not put words in my mouth, especially after I informed you that your assumption was not correct.
We have different views on dignity. I believe each state has positive and negative duties. That does not mean individuals should play victim or have no responsibilities absent government. That is preposterous.
I suggest your approach is not conducive to dialogue, and also that we are clear in our positions. See ya.
Michael Servetus: I would prefer something along the line of Zenster's writing and rhetorical flair or perhaps the Baron's.
Sir, you are too kind. I am honored to serve as some sort of standard, especially in the company of quality writing such as that of the Baron's.
I am grateful to note how contributing here at Gates of Vienna has helped me to craft my writing with even greater care.
As to the ad, we must take whatever chipping away we can get at the armor of Big Government™.
I must agree that the piece in question could have been more aggressive. Unfortunately, that would require actual positions to have been stated; something that a majority of politicians from both sides of the aisle seem all too reluctant to do these days.
It is better to mouth mealy platitudes than make commitments that the electorate might hold them to at a later date. "Principled politician" has become an oxymoron of late in an age when genuine principles are becoming evermore crucial in sorting out precious friends from very real and dreadful foes.
I suppose it has always been as such in some degree but this discernment seems to have become even more pivotal in an age where descent into character assassination and outright physical attack are emerging as preferred methods of "debate".
It is doubtful that I am the only one who has noticed the Left's increasing reliance upon threats and violence when its feeling-based construct is challenged with facts on the ground.
I have encountered this trend with alarming frequency among those who are incapable of formulating coherent explanations for their positions and demand that emotionally charged opinions be allowed to substitute for facts.
Witness the assaults upon freedom in the cases of Geert Wilders and Elizabeth Sabadich-Wolff. In Liberalism's frontal attack upon fundamental human liberties, truth is no longer a defense. How a court of supposed law can function without being beholden to truth defies all explanation.
To some extent, that is my objection to the ad in question. Much of it came across like some strident popularity contest better suited to Facemash or Who’s Hot and Who’s Not. Better that it examine the increasing gulf that divides partisan politics than simply tout some imaginary difference. Truth be told, there is so little distinction to be drawn between America’s political parties that those involved had best begin making sure the differences are pronounced and clear cut.
To date, we still seem to be a one-party-system of the almighty dollar and that is not at all acceptable. The burgeoning population of career politicians has rendered obsolete any concept of “public servant”. The term “self-serving politician” has become redundant. Moreover, Big Government™ has engorged itself upon its own imported mendicant voter plantations to the point where the government no longer serves the people.
When people begin to serve the government, that is the first faltering step on the slippery slope of tyranny. Europeans are seeing this descent into oppression happen all around them and only now are they starting to rebel against this gross violation of their rights.
The relatively uneducated American electorate has opted to put in place a Nanny State of stupendous proportions. All the while ignoring Thomas Jefferson’s warning that:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”
The coalition to destroy Euro Christian Civilization...
(lifted from Moonbattery)
http://www.moonbattery.com/intolerance.jpg
It is long past time for the Left to be called out as the extremists they are. What can be a more extreme view on abortion than believing in the right to kill a fully formed baby capable of living outside the womb in a late term abortion and withholding medical care should he/she survive the procedure? What is more extreme than a union ratchet that works to jack up remuneration regardless of the general economy or employer's situation? What is more extreme than the multicult fantasy that every culture is equally worthy of respect when slavery, beheading, circumcision, ethnic cleansing, gender oppression and killing of gays remain features of certain cultures being imported wholesale into Western civilization? What is more extreme than claiming that every white is BORN racist and scapegoating whites now and to the end of time for all the sins of the world? What is more extreme than approving families on welfare for generations? What is more extreme than being an apologist for communism, the system that killed one hundred million souls and oppressed billions more within living memory?
And these are not a few fanatics with the above beliefs, but your garden variety liberal.
Garden variety Liberal my ass!
If this represents what a garden variety Conservative believes, then we are in bad shape.
This tirade actually has some of the same stench as that heard from some on the Left.
Why is it that stereotyping and spewing hatred of others seems so easy for some.
Enough said.
"Enough said". You said nothing that refuted a single one of my examples of extremism that are documented in hundreds of incidents beginning with academia. It is actually characteristic of an egomaniacal sloppy leftist to think all he needs to do is voice his disapproval and that's the final word on everything while pretending to be an unbiased centrist no less. The middle of the road is not high ground, but where the terminally indecisive are located or moles.
It's my view that you were spewing against ALL liberals. You know, the garden variety type.
I need not refute what I believe is an absurd overgeneralization about people who you apparently don't agree with.
I was therefore pointing out my disagreement.
We both know that nothing I say will change your view, so why engage in futile exercises?
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.