Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
I've also noticed how he fails to attribute any blame to any other country than his own. In his narrative, all of the ills of the Earth can be explained by the American Empire, which seems at best simplistic and at worst incredibly egotistical. I've come to the conclusion that his theory of foreign policy was workable in the Cold War era.... Chomsky was no more credible in his view of the Cold War than he is now. He laid most of the blame for the Cold War on the United States and minimized the role of the Soviet Union, Stalin, and communist ideology in initiating the Cold War and continuing to drive it for 45 years. In this respect, Chomsky was, and is, much like Jean Paul Sartre, who refused to condemn the Soviet Union and Stalinism, even after it was abundantly clear that the Great Terror, the Moscow show trials, and the deaths of millions of Kulaks and so-called "counter-revolutionaries" had occurred. In fact, that was the source of the falling out between Sartre and Albert Camus. Camus recognized totalitarian terror when he saw it and called it out. Sartre would not because he thought to do so would play into the hands of the dreaded capitalist West. In this respect, both Sartre and Chomsky are intellectually dishonest.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 3 2016 22:21:22
 |
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Bill, One more thought on Z Baird. The notion I got at the time that yes there is a conflict of interest between the job she would have been hired to do and her status as an employer. The question is vis a vis a misogynist attack on her, if she were a male appointee by Clinton would the Republicans have dug up that dirt on him? The opposition went straight for a mothering issue, because as conflicting as it was, it was all they could play.
There have been other appointees for Attorney General who probably had disqualifiers that were purposely overlooked, in Bairds case since she is a woman they targeted something that a was a woman issue in terms of working mothers, and I wonder had she been a male choice would they used that ploy. A man could say well MY WIFE handles all the domestic help and she does so with a separate account and had I known she were breaking the law I would have put a stop to it. Etc. Then the boys would have said Ok pass, but know you got by on the skin of your teeth.
From WIKI on the actions Baird took after disclosing to Bill Clinton there may be a hitch. She was honest and made the legal corrections, pad the fines and sponsored her employees on the path to citizenship. A stand up employer and an example of honesty:
_________________________
- Baird was Bill Clinton's first unsuccessful nominee for United States Attorney General in 1993.[7] Baird withdrew her name from consideration for the position when it was learned that she had informed President Clinton that she and her husband had hired illegal immigrants to serve as her chauffeur and nanny, and neglected to pay their social security taxes. Her husband had filed sponsorship papers at the time and sought the advice of counsel on paying taxes. She paid $2,900 in fines for the infractions.[8] The matter, dubbed "Nannygate," attracted intense public attention, and the question "Do you have a Zoë Baird problem?" became frequently asked of other political appointees, including subsequent candidates for Attorney General.[9]
_________________________
I think the motivation to go after Baird was political, but the only thing they could hijack her with is a mother/ nanny issue, which really ain't that big of a deal after she had set it in motion to be rectified. It truly would have a glass house hearing and if it were ever disclosed who on the hearing committee ever hired undocumented workers the among the whole panel there were likely two or three who had some illegal works mucking stables back on the farm down in Texas. By the time Reno was up everyone on that committee must have dropped those undocumented workers like hot rocks.
I mean really, in 1993, a senator from Texas serving at an approval hearing without some undocumented workers back home toiling on his ranch? That would have been Un-American.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 4 2016 0:34:38
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
z
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
If Jeb hadn't dropped out, I would've pointed out that the US has already had 16 years under a Bush President.
Anyways, just saying that sometimes an outside perspective, even if critical, can give some interesting new ways of approaching a domestic issue.
At the 2003 Guitar Foundation of America convention at Merida, Yucatan, Mexico my uninformed choice of accommodation turned out to be the hotel where the principal performers lodged. At breakfast there was a guitar table of a dozen or so. One morning a well known English guitarist and I fell to talking. He lamented the attitude of his friends toward America. He said that his European and English friends thought everything about America was bad, but he tried to point out that America had a great musical and literary culture, and that many Americans were fairly enlightened politically But his friends would have none of it. American = Bad.
I asked whether they were showing French movies at the mega-cinemas on the Champs Elysee. He laughed, and admitted, "No, still Hollywood." Then he asked me what I thought of George W. Bush.
i replied that my father, a retired general, was one of the first active Republicans in Texas since the military occupation of the south after the Civil War. (I didn't mention that this was one of a few main sources of friction between us.) Dad became friends with George H. W. Bush. Dad used to say, "Three times I tried to talk him out of running for Congress---because he would lose." Dad would smile with mock sheepishness (I never knew him to be genuinely sheepish) and say, "I was right twice."
I went on to say that Bush, Sr. was a cultured and educated scion of the Eastern establishment. The boys, on the other hand, grew up in Texas, and George W. at least, was a true believer. I added "No one is as dangerous in politics as a true believer in a position of power."
Scott McClellan, one of W's press secretaries, is a friend of my son. We and the McClellans were neighbors while Sott's mother was Mayor of Austin. Scott worked for W. while he was governor of Texas, and considered him a friend. Scott was no political naif when he went to Washington. He had managed one of his mother's campaigns before he was 21, and continued to be active statewide. Despite having as much interaction with W. as anyone except Cheney and a few Cabinet members, and having attended almost all major policy meetings, Scott resigned from W.'s administration, feeling betrayed by the machinations of Rove, Cheney, Libby and W. himself over the affair of "outing" the CIA agent, Valerie Plame. In his book, and in his conversation Scott's critcism of W. as President has been that he "lacked intellectual curiosity, " and "tended to make policy decisions 'from the gut' rather than from careful intellectual analysis and comprehensive staffing." It would be hard to differ more from Bush, Sr.'s approach. For example, Gorbachev and Schevardnadze champed at the bit while Bush, Sr. took months over a careful review by State, CIA, Defense, National Security et al of Reagan's policy and negotiations with the Soviets.
Though they were father and son, it would be difficult to find two post WW II Republican presidents more different than the two Bushes.
Personally? My Japanese girlfriend told me she voted for Bush, Sr., though she didn't like either candidate and thought Bush was "out of touch with the country." She felt Bush would be more favorable than the Democrat to my consulting business in the defense industry. I replied, "The last president I felt like I really knew where he was coming from was Dwight Eisenhower. I was a teenager who had grown up in the military."
Bush, Sr.'s nominating convention in Houston, stage managed by Jim Baker, was carefully modeled upon the Southern Baptist Convention. Its falsity and the poundingly moronic talking points of the stump speecheds so turned my stomach that I didn't vote in that election. Always wrong-footed , I have continued to move leftward with age. My large extended family in Texas have barely tolerated it--except a few who have written me off.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 4 2016 3:58:25
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
He said that his European and English friends thought everything about America was bad
It is true that there is a latent sense of antiamericanism in some European societies. For the most part, it comes and goes according to the latest political events. From 2001 to 2003, the general feeling was one of support and gratitude. After 2003 and the US's unilateral intervention in Irak, public opinion grew rapidly critical of the US again. After the election of Obama in went back to being somewhat more positive. Unfortunately, many people don't look any further than the politics of a country. However, I've yet to meet a Frenchman who didn't love the people in the US when they visited, no matter how they may have felt before going. They always seem surprised, as if they expected Americans to necessarily be mean and unwelcoming just because they don't agree or understand their politics. Once they realize that their opinions don't necessarily fit with reality, it encourages many of them to look deeper into why they had felt distrustful vis-à-vis 'les Américains" in the first place, then discovering that in some cases it was just their own political leaders wagging the dog by pointing to the US.
quote:
Though they were father and son, it would be difficult to find two post WW II Republican presidents more different than the two Bushes.
Nor would I expect Hillary to be another Bill (though admittedly, she's more similar to Bill than Bush father and son are to each other). The reason I worry about political dynasties has more to do with class and the accretion of power around an increasingly smaller amount of individuals. This says nothing about the qualities of these people, nor does it imply that they are similar. It is somewhat akin to be being against monarchy (the King may have done a lot of good for his people, he may have been a very different man than his father, and a different man than his cousin who is king in the neighouring country. But he is nonetheless a king, propped up on the seat of power by the force of a family). Obviously, this is a minor concern at this time. But any step in that direction is a step away from democracy.
quote:
Always wrong-footed , I have continued to move leftward with age. My large extended family in Texas have barely tolerated it--except a few who have written me off.
I'm curious, is it possible that you haven't been moving leftward so much as the right has been shifting increasingly to the right? I find myself drifting towards the right, having started pretty far on the left (in US standards, very far on the left..) but I haven't yet figured out if it was me changing opinions with age or if it was simply the result of a more general shift towards the right of the parties I tend to side with.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 4 2016 4:46:15
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
... I've yet to meet a Frenchman who didn't love the people in the US when they visited, ...
Whether during my stays in the US or when meeting Americans abroad, it´s all fond memories. And I suppose this is how it will be for most people´s experience with American folks, who for most are of cheerful, kind and interested nature.
I never believed that the fraction accused of anti americanism had any reservations against American people. Rather do I estimate "anti americanism" as a term to discriminate those who consciously and justifiedly critisize US politics for the desaster that they have caused globally since after WWI until today.
Most people are intelligent enough to distinguish between shady policies of American establishment and American people. They are as much the same like a member of Boing´s supervisory board and a fitter in the hangar.
Two of a fundamentally different world.
From there: It is about time for states of the people, and silly to deny, unless one being situated on the benefitting side of the undemocratic game in illusory world.
Ruphus
PS:
A French team, investigating on coltan mines in Kongo, confronted Bill Gates about Microsoft´s advantage taken on miners (salary: 5 bucks for 12 hours in hot, oxygene lacking tunnels of often hardly 1 meter hight), child labor and their regular death tolls in collapsing channels.
That was on a press conference Mr. Gates was giving in Africa on his humanitarian project, where he saves those cute little African children from AIDS.
Reaction: He as member of board claims to not be working for Microsoft. Gets up and leaves.
Hundreds and thousands percents of profite margin are not enough to losen exploitation on those who eat the dust; but one can then spend on "humanitarian" projects.
-
There is no alternative to limiting appropriation and let the people breath in a communally weighted society.
States have got to be of the people, not of the privileged.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 4 2016 12:35:27
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Churchill would certainly have said so even if he had seen todays surveys that show that in fact conservatives lack intelligence.
William F. Buckley? George F. Will? Historians John Lewis Gaddis?, Niall Ferguson? Max Hastings? Going back in history, Edmund Burke? Disraeli? And, yes, Winston Churchill? As well as others too numerous to name here?
During my career as a United States diplomat, and my current gig as a State Department and Defense Department contracting consultant, I have had occasion to meet, interact, and negotiate with both conservatives and liberals of many different nationalities. It has been my experience that in the case of both conservatives and liberals, there were about an equal number within each category who were highly intelligent, knew their business intimately, and could debate the issues and negotiate at the highest level of competence. On the other hand, there were about an equal number of each persuasion who were intellectual horses asses.
I would be interested in viewing the surveys you mention above that purportedly demonstrate the sweeping assertion that conservatives lack intelligence. For my own edification, and that of other Foro members who may be interested, would you please cite the name and publishing date of the surveys you mention in your quote cited above?
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 5 2016 15:41:28
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
My own 2 cents:
There was a 2009 study by Stankov that indicates a negative correlation between conservatism and intelligence. Though I personnally don't agree with his conclusions and this is the only study I know of that has come to such a conclusion.
The Pew Research Center has found a correlation between education levels and political leanings in the US. There is a slight but significant tendency to vote Democrat for College and graduate educated people and a strong tendency to vote Democrat for Post-graduate educated people. But this is well known and the move from education levels to actual intelligence is a pretty big leap...(and there are many other social factors that could explain this correlation). The research to establish a correlation between cognitive ability and education levels simply hasn't been done at this point so there's no way to know.
On a side note, I've always been curious to know what the correlation would look like if they broke down each group per major. Is a PhD in economics as likely to vote Democrat than say a PhD in French Lit?
In the US, the strongest correlation with political leanings seems to be religious affiliation (if I remember correctly, the highest correlation to being Republican was Mormons, followed by Evangelicals).
I personally believe that the religious divide is inherently more polarizing than the political divide but, particularly in the US, religion has tainted the political debate to a very large extent and the two tend to get lumped together. In simple terms, the "logic" would be: this belief is stupid, therefore the person who believes it must be stupid, therefore his political views must also be stupid. This strikes me as a huge shortcut but I've seen many people take it. Another case of faulty logic is when people say "a wide majority of Evangelicals are Republican, therefore a wide majority of Republicans must be Evangelicals"...
Anyways, just my own 2 cents.
EDIT: just took a quick glance at the latest Pew polls. 70 percents of Mormons and 68 percent of white evangelical protestants identify as Republican. However, 80 percent of Blacks and 65 percent of Asians identify as Democrat, so it seems that I was wrong about religious affiliation having the highest correlation to political leanings. Race does. I'll still leave that paragraph up in case someone can make something of it.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 5 2016 16:45:06
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
In the US, the strongest correlation with political leanings seems to be religious affiliation (if I remember correctly, the highest correlation to being Republican was Mormons, followed by Evangelicals). I personally believe that the religious divide is inherently more polarizing than the political divide but, particularly in the US, religion has tainted the political debate to a very large extent and the two tend to get lumped together.
Part of the problem is that the definition of "Conservative" has been hijacked by those whose primary concerns are Guns, God, and Immigration. There was a time when a Conservative was one whose basic beliefs were in a strong U.S. defense, free and open markets, equality of opportunity (if not of outcome) for immigrants and others, and whose religion (hard as it is to believe today) was likely Episcopalian. It seems to me that those deemed "Conservatives" today are largely defined by the Evangelicals, without reference to the old-fashioned Conservatives, of whom my father was one, and with whom I, at least in part, identify today.
In my opinion, a good example of a Conservative whose many facets defied pigeon-holing was Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a Conservative for sure. He believed in a strong defense establishment, just as did his Democratic Senate colleague and later President John F. Kennedy. Goldwater was pushing for welfare reform during his 1964 presidential campaign, a full three decades before Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law. Goldwater was an Episcopalian, as was my entire family, and he attended services at the High Church in Phoenix. Yet, Goldwater was his own man.
An example of Goldwater's independence was in 1981 when President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jerry Falwell, he of the so-called "Moral Majority," lambasted O'Connor's nomination, stating publicly, "Every good Christian should oppose this nomination." A reporter contacted Barry Goldwater and asked him what he thought of Falwell's statement. Goldwater famously replied, "Well, I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell in the ass."
In any case, I mention Goldwater only to point out that individuals can defy what we think we "know" about their political and philosophical beliefs. Nevertheless, I think the term "Conservative" has come to be defined by the lowest common denominator, both by many who profess to be conservative and by liberals who make no distinctions themselves.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 5 2016 19:46:24
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
Part of the problem is that the definition of "Conservative" has been hijacked by those whose primary concerns are Guns, God, and Immigration. There was a time when a Conservative was one whose basic beliefs were in a strong U.S. defense, free and open markets, equality of opportunity (if not of outcome) for immigrants and others, and whose religion (hard as it is to believe today) was likely Episcopalian. It seems to me that those deemed "Conservatives" today are largely defined by the Evangelicals, without reference to the old-fashioned Conservatives, of whom my father was one, and with whom I identify today.
That was the sense of my question to Richard Jernigan. Not so much that individuals are drifting to the right, rather that the Republican party is (though if the party drifts towards the right, this may arguably have a retroactive effect on some individuals, pushing them more to the right). I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic Party were similarly hijacked in a few years. Of course, in their case it won't be Guns, God and Immigration, it will be PC, PC, PC. If this happens, some Democrats will end up like many Conservatives today, unable to identify themselves in any shape, way or form with the party that is supposed to represent their values. I'm going off topic here, but I read today about a petition by a group of Harvard students to change the school's insignia. Though I get the reason that motivates them to do so, I still can't understand why they are so obsessed with rewriting the past, renaming everything as if a new word was going to erase the underlying reality (the so-called euphemism treadmill..) and I fear a future where these students are in charge of any part of public governance or discourse. If both major parties end up being led by their own smallest common denominator, the going's gonna get tough for the rational-minded out there. I can only hope both parties get down to it and do some serious housekeeping before that happens.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 5 2016 20:15:37
|
|
El Frijolito
Posts: 131
Joined: Feb. 27 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
The future is now...
I'd suggest that if anything, the Republican Party has drifted leftward, in a damaging quest for accommodation and appeasement, leaving the majority of conservatives to the right of the party.
As for the Democrats, the Democrat Party elected their most left-leaning senator to the presidency in 2008. Their most viable candidates for 2016 include a member of that former senator's administration and their current most left-leaning senator. That 'hijacking' of the Democrat party is old news, and I suspect it is fair to say that there are centrist Democrats that are pretty alienated.
The twin threats of PC and historical revisionism have already hit many US campuses (e.g. Princeton, which is even now trying to erase the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, and Amherst - ditto Lord Jeffrey Amherst), but also UK campuses and South African universities. In the US (and I suspect the UK) the forces that brought events to this point are well entrenched - especially in academia, but also in government, and national media - and the impact on public discourse has already been significantly damaging.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 5 2016 21:32:56
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to El Frijolito)
|
|
|
quote:
As for the Democrats, the Democrat Party elected their most left-leaning senator to the presidency in 2008. Their most viable candidates for 2016 include a member of that former senator's administration and their current most left-leaning senator. That 'hijacking' of the Democrat party is old news, and I suspect it is fair to say that there are centrist Democrats that are pretty alienated.
From a European perspective, we've been wondering for ages what a leftist candidate in the US would look like. Obama would be considered somewhere between right and center right over here (it's probably not true of all European countries, but it is in the ones I really know of). Sanders would probably be considered on the left, but that could changed once we find out more about what his actual economic policies are. The current Republican party is very similar to many of our far right parties. It's funny how the very concept of right and left vary according to an everchanging focal point that is defined by history and culture.
quote:
The twin threats of PC and historical revisionism have already hit many US campuses (e.g. Princeton, which is even now trying to erase the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, and Amherst - ditto Lord Jeffrey Amherst), but also UK campuses and South African universities. In the US (and I suspect the UK) the forces that brought events to this point are well entrenched - especially in academia, but also in government, and national media - and the impact on public discourse has already been significantly damaging.
Of course this has been going on for quite a while now. I do get the impression that it's gradually getting worse though. At first, it just made for ridiculous anecdotes about how irrational the PC leftists could be. Then came the firings and the defamation of public figures for anything that our weak-hearted students couldn't stomach. And now...well that's what I'm worried about. What now?!
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 5 2016 21:47:52
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: That bit with Sanders / Clinton (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
Part of the problem is that the definition of "Conservative" has been hijacked by those whose primary concerns are Guns, God, and Immigration. There was a time when a Conservative was one whose basic beliefs were in a strong U.S. defense, free and open markets, equality of opportunity (if not of outcome) for immigrants and others, and whose religion (hard as it is to believe today) was likely Episcopalian. It seems to me that those deemed "Conservatives" today are largely defined by the Evangelicals, without reference to the old-fashioned Conservatives, of whom my father was one, and with whom I, at least in part, identify today.
In my opinion, a good example of a Conservative whose many facets defied pigeon-holing was Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a Conservative for sure. He believed in a strong defense establishment, just as did his Democratic Senate colleague and later President John F. Kennedy. Goldwater was pushing for welfare reform during his 1964 presidential campaign, a full three decades before Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law. Goldwater was an Episcopalian, as was my entire family, and he attended services at the High Church in Phoenix. Yet, Goldwater was his own man.
An example of Goldwater's independence was in 1981 when President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jerry Falwell, he of the so-called "Moral Majority," lambasted O'Connor's nomination, stating publicly, "Every good Christian should oppose this nomination." A reporter contacted Barry Goldwater and asked him what he thought of Falwell's statement. Goldwater famously replied, "Well, I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell in the ass."
In any case, I mention Goldwater only to point out that individuals can defy what we think we "know" about their political and philosophical beliefs. Nevertheless, I think the term "Conservative" has come to be defined by the lowest common denominator, both by many who profess to be conservative and by liberals who make no distinctions themselves.
Bill
Thank you, Bill. Very well put.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 8 2016 2:37:10
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.1103516 secs.
|
Printable Version
