Label Confusion, Part I
Well said Allen, well said!
Excellent post, Allan.
Very good. I’m looking forward to the M.E. labels - like the ones on their underwear - “Never needs washing.”
Hmmm. I thought you were going to take special exception to the last clause in definition 1: “the protection of civil liberties.” Modern “Liberalism” (a la ACLU) is more concerned about the liberties of pedophiles (Nambla) than they are of things like gun ownership. Like Justice Kennedy, they cherry-pick issues and evidence to advance their own twisted beliefs.
I recently read that classifying contemporary university environments as “liberal” is totally inaccurate. Liberal implies all ideas and viewpoints are welcome. Clearly, they are not. They are more fascist than liberal. Since I can’t remember who wrote it, I’ll steal the quote for myself. Mighty “liberal” of me, eh?
I still say we should tattoo the Koran on a pig and promote it as art…
Funny you should mention it but “civil liberties” and “race” are the topics of Part III I was saving that for its own editorial). Part II is finished and Part III is almost done. Any suggestions for Part IV label confusion? I’m toying with going after “politically correct” and “gay” in part IV.
The opportunities are limitless. The NAALCP labels themselves the oldest civil rights group in America. Funny thing, the NRA is older.
Will the Middle East topic clear up that “terrorist” vs. “freedom fighter” label-thing? I ALWAYS get confused on that one.
Hell, you can devote a whole chapter to Sen Byrd-brain himself! He associates republicans with Nazi’s (he “liberally” stole a page from Chief Greasy-Hair) then says “No I didn’t.” I remember last summer he was on Meet The Press w/ Tim Russert while peddling his book uncharacteristically titled “Losing America: Confronting A Reckless And Arrogant Presidency.” His lunatic rants drove me to download the show transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what you also say in the book. Back in October of 2002, only 23 senators opposed a resolution authorizing the president to go to war. “In the end, only 22 other members voted to oppose this despicable grant of authority. ...Never in my half century of congressional service had the United States Senate proved unworthy of its great name. What would the framers have thought? In this terrible show of weakness, the Senate left an indelible stain upon its own escutcheon. Having revered the Senate during my service for more than forty years, I was never pained so much.”
You say that the 22 senators who joined with you were profiles in courage, and those who didn’t vote that way had shown weakness. John Kerry, candidate for president, John Edwards, candidate for vice president, your Democratic Party, voted for the war. Are they weak?
SEN. BYRD: They were misled. I’m confident of that. And I have a feeling that that is why they voted as they did.
...Moments later, Russert hits Byrd again on the same topic:
MR. RUSSERT: You seem to suggest that John Kerry and John Edwards lacked courage.
SEN. BYRD: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying they lacked the facts.
...sheesh!
Maybe a good topic would be the flagrant opportunistic nature of the labels that are used. This may explain the confusion around the labels. Both sides of the aisle do this, but the vocal far left - politicians as well as activists - remind me of the zombies from the “Dawn of the Dead” movies in two important ways. First, they want to remove and eat your brain - so you’ll be just like them, and second, no matter what you hit them with, they defy logic and reason and just keep coming and coming and coming. What was an issue yesterday, is meaningless today and vice versa. Sheets Byrd is a classic example. His labels change from “collectively weak” to “misled” faster than a SCOTUS opinion.
Whatever you write, I am looking forward to reading it.
Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. The best minds discuss ideas.
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?article=177
Anybody who’s still lucid at this hour in the P.M. (you’re excused, Dude) and is up for heavy reading, should try Hayek’s “Why I Am Not A Conservative”. The entire article is linked above.
Posted by Oink
03/07/2005 at 05:52 PM
The last time a a President did something that personally affected me, was 1965, when that cocksucker Lyndon Johnson mobilized the Marines to go to VietNam. I was sleeping with my seabag padlocked to my rack (FULL Ready)in Kaneoe Bay, Hawaii.
We suspected that something serious was afoot if LBJ was calling on the Kick-em-in-the-Balls Squad. If I had known the dipshit thinking & half-assed information that was behind this ...
Lee Harvey Oswald—where were you when we really needed you? oink oink oink !
Posted by Oink
03/07/2005 at 08:48 PM
"An indelible stain on it’s own escutcheon”
Holy shit, this douchebag really has got to go. Between him and the submariner and the surfer from Massachusetts I’m almost proud of “spit” Hilary “spit”Posted by commander0
03/07/2005 at 09:38 PM
It sound to me that the qualifications for “Liberal” that Allan posted now most accuratly describe “Libertarians”
my question for Allan would be, how would he differentiate the “neo-conservatives” from the “paleo-conservatives”?
Posted by Lucius Severus Pertinax
03/08/2005 at 02:56 AM
