The Audacity of Vanity

[AcesFull]

How can you say that Obama has done nothing? Politically, yes, he may have achieved very little to this point. However, when you look at the fact the Obama is a mixed race person, who was raised in an era when mixed race children were looked down upon...To have achieved what he has is somewhat of a miracle. He earned his way through Harvard and was the first minority elected as head of the Harvard Law Review. He won the democratic nomination for President with the name Barack Hussien Obama. That alone is an accomplishment that should not be undervalued in this unabashedly judgmental nation that we live in. Maybe he shouldn't give a speech at this treasured area, however, it shouldn't be based on his lack of political accomplishments. And, for that matter, give me the name of one major legislation bill that John McCain has been central to in his 30 some years in the major political arena. And, yes, I know the man is a war hero...Move on. Shouldn't Obama be held as somewhat of a hero for overcoming his shortcomings and living the American dream...?

Individual sentences in long posts are intended to be read in context. Obama, like Kerry, have accomplished little in terms of meaningful legislation. Political accomplishments, such as being appointed to committees or elected to office, mean little to me and many fellow taxpayers. What is important is what one does after they are elected to office. Obama comes up lacking in that area.

[All Tell]

How can you say that Obama has done nothing? Politically, yes, he may have achieved very little to this point. However, when you look at the fact the Obama is a mixed race person, who was raised in an era when mixed race children were looked down upon...To have achieved what he has is somewhat of a miracle. He earned his way through Harvard and was the first minority elected as head of the Harvard Law Review. He won the democratic nomination for President with the name Barack Hussien Obama. That alone is an accomplishment that should not be undervalued in this unabashedly judgmental nation that we live in. Maybe he shouldn't give a speech at this treasured area, however, it shouldn't be based on his lack of political accomplishments. And, for that matter, give me the name of one major legislation bill that John McCain has been central to in his 30 some years in the major political arena. And, yes, I know the man is a war hero...Move on. Shouldn't Obama be held as somewhat of a hero for overcoming his shortcomings and living the American dream...?

 

 

I'll give you two that ought to be making liberals sing the man's praises.

 

Co-sponsoring campaign finance reform legislation that has led directly to the proliferation of organizations like Move-on.org.

 

Being one of the archetects of the "gang of 14" that prevented conservative judges from being seated on various benches across the country.

[Hatz]

I certainly respect your right to your opinion of my opinion, but there is nothing fallacious about my statement.

 

On today's political scale, Truman, Kennedy, and most other pre-Watergate Democrats would fall into the conservative or moderate category. Liberals who shared views similar to Obama (Kerry comes to mind) actively and vehemently opposed policies such as those pursued by Reagan, which IMO, eventually freed the East German people of the yoke of communism.

 

I understand that liberal politicians would like to take some credit for the fall of the Soviet Union but I do not see how the opinion that I expressed is in any way deceptive. What liberal policies do you believe helped dissolve the Iron Curtain? Do you think that unilateral nuclear disarmament, as advocated by John Kerry and other liberals during the Reagan adminstration or the other deep cuts in US military spending made or proposed, such as the ones made by Jimmy Carter played a role in toppling the Soviet regime? Had liberals such as Kerry and Kennedy been successful in thwarting Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative program - would that have hastened to fall of the Berlin Wall?

 

Please point out the great liberal foreign policy initiatives of the 60's. 70's. and 80's that played a positive role in combatting communism. For the most part, liberals allowed Reagan to rebuild our military to put pressure on the Soviets to keep pace only in exchange for expanding domestic social welfare programs. They were part of the problem not part of the solution.

 

 

To me that is a redaction of history that can't be easily made.

 

The truth is that these leaders were labeled and in some cases castigated for being too liberal.

 

Truman was vilified as was George Marshall (a common target of Joe McCarthy in the day) as being soft on communism and not tough enough. (See Truman's handling of the concept that the Civilian authority rules the Military, ala Doug Macarthur)

 

Kennedy (as was Truman) was also soft on Communism according to contemporaries because of the Bay of Pigs Fiasco and his refusal to invade Cuba.

 

To look the other way on these facts and declare through a reconstructive lens that these were not "real liberals" is fallacious (trying to hide their historical context) and IMO they are examples of "liberals" who helped to bring down the Berlin Wall in the long run. The cold war was won over the course of 40 or so years, not in one 10 year window.

[AcesFull]

To me that is a redaction of history that can't be easily made.

 

The truth is that these leaders were labeled and in some cases castigated for being too liberal.

 

Truman was vilified as was George Marshall (a common target of Joe McCarthy in the day) as being soft on communism and not tough enough. (See Truman's handling of the concept that the Civilian authority rules the Military, ala Doug Macarthur)

 

Kennedy (as was Truman) was also soft on Communism according to contemporaries because of the Bay of Pigs Fiasco and his refusal to invade Cuba.

 

To look the other way on these facts and declare through a reconstructive lens that these were not "real liberals" is fallacious (trying to hide their historical context) and IMO they are examples of "liberals" who helped to bring down the Berlin Wall in the long run. The cold war was won over the course of 40 or so years, not in one 10 year window.

Your are totally taking my characterizations out of the context in which I used them. I agree that Truman and Kennedy were castigated by many for being too liberal for the times in which they lived. I never claimed or implied otherwise.

 

However, the positions taken by Truman and Kennedy in the context of today's political spectrum would clearly place them in the center or right. Pre-Watergate liberals who battled the Soviets during the Cold War would find very little in common with the foreign policy advocated by modern liberals such as Obama, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Kerry.

 

There was nothing "fallacious" about my posts and I am getting a little tired of you throwing out big words to call me a liar. There is no need to use three syllables or more when one or two will suffice.

 

How would would have the proposals made during this campaign by Barack Obama played in JFK's day? Would they have been considered traditional liberal or would he have been placed on the left fringe of the political spectrum?

 

The bottom line is that neither Barack Obama nor the kind of policies that he advocates played any positive role in bringing down the Berlin Wall.

[Hatz]

Your are totally taking my characterizations out of the context in which I used them. I agree that Truman and Kennedy were castigated by many for being too liberal for the times in which they lived. I never claimed or implied otherwise.

 

However, the positions taken by Truman and Kennedy in the context of today's political spectrum would clearly place them in the center or right. Pre-Watergate liberals who battled the Soviets during the Cold War would find very little in common with the foreign policy advocated by modern liberals such as Obama, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Kerry.

 

There was nothing "fallacious" about my posts and I am getting a little tired of you throwing out big words to call me a liar. There is no need to use three syllables or more when one or two will suffice.

 

How would would have the proposals made during this campaign by Barack Obama played in JFK's day? Would they have been considered traditional liberal or would he have been placed on the left fringe of the political spectrum?

 

The bottom line is that neither Barack Obama nor the kind of policies that he advocates played any positive role in bringing down the Berlin Wall.

 

 

Perhaps you need to step back a little from this if you bother to see from another's perspective. You clearly throw out an absolute (Nothing a liberal did to help with the Cold War) and then think it's okay to say such. You then take that statement and upon reply set new parameters (well they were liberal in their day but not compared to today's liberals) for the blanket statement.

 

The reality is that I can do that with any group as you can. What did Conservatives really do? I mean Goldwater was a Conservative in '64 fighting for that side throughout the Cold War. But by the time of the Reagan Revolution there was a lot of the Conservative Movement he balked at (Abortion, Gay Rights, Moral Majority, etc.) and therefore he can't be called a Conservative anymore. He's middle of the road at best. Liberal to many on some of those issues. I took the individuals we mentioned (Kennedy, Truman and even Marshall) and viewed them in the context of their times and not a lens of reconstruction.

 

As to whether you are offended by my choice of words: You cite one inference of the meaning but not all:

 

–adjective 1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.

2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.

3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.

 

I used it in context of the first one noted. As to the deceptive part, let's face it - you are presenting your point of view and whether intending to mislead or not - you see it as correct. I disagree and try to present a counter. To quote Michael Corleone, "It's nothing personal Aces, just business."

 

If I have offended you in some way, my apologies for your feelings of reproach. :thumb: (BTW, I don't see them as big words, just good words and words are what I do for a living.)

[cch5432]

The reality is that I can do that with any group as you can. What did Conservatives really do? I mean Goldwater was a Conservative in '64 fighting for that side throughout the Cold War. But by the time of the Reagan Revolution there was a lot of the Conservative Movement he balked at (Abortion, Gay Rights, Moral Majority, etc.) and therefore he can't be called a Conservative anymore. He's middle of the road at best. Liberal to many on some of those issues.

Barry Goldwater is a libertarian, which I find to be the most conservative. I would not describe him as middle of the road. On social issues, he is a true conservative, but his views are not identical to conservative of today.

[kyvince]

Am I a horrible person because I volunteer with planned parenthood?

Does a view on one issue completely erase any moral standing that a person has?

 

In my opinion YES.

 

Put it this way if your murder someone, no matter what else you have done in life you are a murderer!

 

OJ Simpson, did many charitable things in his life. He spoke to children of the ghetto, telling them to avoid Drugs and gangs. He was one of the best RB's in College history.

 

At the end of the day he will be remembered and judged as a murderer!

[Hatz]

Barry Goldwater is a libertarian, which I find to be the most conservative. I would not describe him as middle of the road. On social issues, he is a true conservative, but his views are not identical to conservative of today.

 

Well, technically he's nothing now.

 

He was what has formed the thought of Libertarian's but in his day he was merely known as a Conservative Republican.

 

As to not describing him as middle of the road, so where do those issues (Gay Rights, Abortion, God in the Public Forum) really place one on the spectrum? His stands on those issues are far from true conservative today. Fiscally he was very Conservative at any age.

 

My point to Aces and on this is to review a person's politics in the lens of today is not a true measure of what they believed. (We don't know since they are not part of today's world) For example, John Adams was a Federalist who believed in strong Central Government (Not necessarily as strong as Alexander Hamilton but strong) but could he really be labeled as a Moderate/Liberal today?

[Hatz]

In my opinion YES.

 

Put it this way if your murder someone, no matter what else you have done in life you are a murderer!

 

OJ Simpson, did many charitable things in his life. He spoke to children of the ghetto, telling them to avoid Drugs and gangs. He was one of the best RB's in College history.

 

At the end of the day he will be remembered and judged as a murderer!

 

 

I see your point.

 

David is never known as anything but a Murderer in the Old Testament.

 

Moses was branded a Murderer and despite all the work he did as Lawgiver and leader of the Hebrews, that's all he was ever known and judged for.

[rockmom]

In my opinion YES.

 

Put it this way if your murder someone, no matter what else you have done in life you are a murderer!

 

OJ Simpson, did many charitable things in his life. He spoke to children of the ghetto, telling them to avoid Drugs and gangs. He was one of the best RB's in College history.

 

At the end of the day he will be remembered and judged as a murderer!

 

 

First of all, Planned Parenthood, as it's name implies, is about preventing unwanted pregnancies. It provides many services to low income women to prevent pregnancies. It also provides gynocological services to low income women, many of whom would not be able to afford such important, basic care.

 

Planned Parenthood was not started to perform abortions. Margaret Sanger's intitial intent was to provide a way for women who were being worn out (for lack of a better term) from husband's "right" to their bodies (to put it as delicately as possible). Women with no access to preventative measures were literally having their bodies worn out from multiple pregnancies. Many who sought backroom abortions from either medical hacks, vultures who preyed on these women's plight, or even animal docotors were dying of either botched abortions, or from diseases and infections from unsantitary conditions.

 

Women in the day who sought help through their churches, ministers and priests were told it was their duty to submit to their husband's "attentions". There was no support for these women in finding a solution or having them treat their misery as any real problem.

 

Secondly, although OJ was found to be responsible in a civil court, he was not convicted of murder by a jury, and thus, is not technically a murderer. While you may believe he was guilty, the fact of the matter is that a jury did not find him to be, and apparently the evidence did not convict him.

[AcesFull]

Perhaps you need to step back a little from this if you bother to see from another's perspective. You clearly throw out an absolute (Nothing a liberal did to help with the Cold War) and then think it's okay to say such. You then take that statement and upon reply set new parameters (well they were liberal in their day but not compared to today's liberals) for the blanket statement.

 

The reality is that I can do that with any group as you can. What did Conservatives really do? I mean Goldwater was a Conservative in '64 fighting for that side throughout the Cold War. But by the time of the Reagan Revolution there was a lot of the Conservative Movement he balked at (Abortion, Gay Rights, Moral Majority, etc.) and therefore he can't be called a Conservative anymore. He's middle of the road at best. Liberal to many on some of those issues. I took the individuals we mentioned (Kennedy, Truman and even Marshall) and viewed them in the context of their times and not a lens of reconstruction.

 

As to whether you are offended by my choice of words: You cite one inference of the meaning but not all:

 

–adjective 1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.

2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.

3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.

 

I used it in context of the first one noted. As to the deceptive part, let's face it - you are presenting your point of view and whether intending to mislead or not - you see it as correct. I disagree and try to present a counter. To quote Michael Corleone, "It's nothing personal Aces, just business."

 

If I have offended you in some way, my apologies for your feelings of reproach. :thumb: (BTW, I don't see them as big words, just good words and words are what I do for a living.)

The topic is Obama's arrogance. Whether Kennedy and Truman were considered liberals in their day is irrelevant to the discussion because if they were alive today and held similar positions they would not only be far to Obama's right, they would also be to McCain's right. John Kerry was on the losing side of the Cold War policy debates and as far as I can tell, Barack Obama is as close to Kerry's twin foreign policy-wise as anybody in the US Senate.

 

Save your apology. I posted the definition of fallacious the first time that you hurled the word in my direction, so I am pretty sure that you knew how it would be taken the second time that you used it. If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I believe I recognize an insult when it is thrown in my direction. The old "I apologize if my words were taken the wrong way" apologies are fine for politicians I guess but they ring a bit hollow to me. :lol:

[cch5432]

As to not describing him as middle of the road, so where do those issues (Gay Rights, Abortion, God in the Public Forum) really place one on the spectrum? His stands on those issues are far from true conservative today. Fiscally he was very Conservative at any age.

I am getting off topic, but he would not be middle of the road- he would be conservative on those issues. First of all, he would leave all of those up to the states. Also, he would not support taxpayer-funded abortion clinics that would be supported by the left. I guess it does not matter though, and it is arguable either way.

[AcesFull]

Conservatives from the pre-Watergate period holding their same world views would still be considered conservatives today. Most pre-Watergate liberals would be considered moderates or conservatives as well. With the possible exception of the Reagan era, our nation has been drifting leftward for many years. Traditional liberals would be as shocked by Obama's nomination as I am.

 

Hopefully, the nomination of Obama signals the leftward extreme and the pendulum will begin swinging back to the right. Obama's election combined with a Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would bring about radical change to this country, just as he promised the left during the primaries.

[Habib]

Conservatives from the pre-Watergate period holding their same world views would still be considered conservatives today. Most pre-Watergate liberals would be considered moderates or conservatives as well. With the possible exception of the Reagan era, our nation has been drifting leftward for many years. Traditional liberals would be as shocked by Obama's nomination as I am.

 

Culturally, the United States has become more liberal and perhaps its politics have followed as a result. Economically, however, it has done the opposite.

[Hatz]

The topic is Obama's arrogance. Whether Kennedy and Truman were considered liberals in their day is irrelevant to the discussion because if they were alive today and held similar positions they would not only be far to Obama's right, they would also be to McCain's right. John Kerry was on the losing side of the Cold War policy debates and as far as I can tell, Barack Obama is as close to Kerry's twin foreign policy-wise as anybody in the US Senate.

 

Save your apology. I posted the definition of fallacious the first time that you hurled the word in my direction, so I am pretty sure that you knew how it would be taken the second time that you used it. If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I believe I recognize an insult when it is thrown in my direction. The old "I apologize if my words were taken the wrong way" apologies are fine for politicians I guess but they ring a bit hollow to me. :lol:

 

 

Hey I can't help it if your dictionary has only one definition per word. :lol: