A Great "Conservative" speech.

[Blotan Hunka]

Listen to these great thoughts.

Whenever in our history people have believed that violence is a legitimate extension of politics they have been wrong. In the 1960s, many good things happened and there was much turmoil. But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

Freedom of political speech will never justify violence--never. Our founding fathers created a system of laws in which reason could prevail over fear. Without respect for this law there is no freedom.

So I say this to the militias and all others who believe that the greatest threat to freedom comes from the government instead of from those who would take away our freedom: If you say violence is an acceptable way to make change, you are wrong. If you say that government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong.

....

How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes.
I say to you, all of you,....there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

A great speech that I agree with. Bush talking about the war on terror?

No
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-President Bill Clinton's commencement speech at the U of Michigan

He was talking about the Michigan Militia in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing.

I would bet, dimes to dollars that if this WAS Pres. Bush giving the same speech, all of those great points would be debated as WRONG!

A shining example of looking at events throgh "political goggles".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Very true.

 

[CoryKS]

This actually gives me hope that, in the event the Democrats find a grown-up to run and actually win, they will take the correct approach with regard to the WOT. Not a great deal of hope, but some.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Yeah. But then all the Republicans will be fighting them at every turn.

 

[CoryKS]

Yeah. But then all the Republicans will be fighting them at every turn.

Yup. I'm reminded of Kissenger's comment regarding the Iran-Iraq war: "It's a pity they can't both lose."

 

[Marginal]

Listen to these great thoughts.




A great speech that I agree with. Bush talking about the war on terror?

No
.
-President Bill Clinton's commencement speech at the U of Michigan

He was talking about the Michigan Militia in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing.

I would bet, dimes to dollars that if this WAS Pres. Bush giving the same speech, all of those great points would be debated as WRONG!

A shining example of looking at events throgh "political goggles".

Heh. Bush's answer was the revive the alien and sedition acts. He'd come across as purely hypocritical making such a speech. Especially in wake of the Patriot act, the NSA scandals, his pre-emprive war doctrine etc.

 

[grydth]

Yeah. But then all the Republicans will be fighting them at every turn.

This is so true - and is a greater threat to our survival as a nation than any 10 Osama bin Laden's. You see it on both parties, both extremes. Especially the "at every turn" to me indicates a second civil war, and there won't be any winners in that one.

 

[Kreth]

This actually gives me hope that, in the event the Democrats find a grown-up to run and actually win, they will take the correct approach with regard to the WOT. Not a great deal of hope, but some.

Wait, you're expecting the Democrats to finish Robert Jordan's last book?



:uhyeah:

 

[tellner]

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are very slippery terms. George Bush, Ron Paul, Henry Cabot Lodge and Barry Goldwater are all thought of as conservatives but are/were very different men.

If you look at his economic policies Bill Clinton was down the line the same as a moderate Republican circa 1965. And if you look at the legislation he actually proposed instead of the out-and-out lies of Arkansas Project, the RNC et al he was to the right of most Democrats, about middle of the road for 1970s Republicans and at that a touch to the left of his wife.

Blotan, I know you aren't a great fan of Al Gore. But I'd urge you to pick up a copy of his newest book The Assault on Reason. The analysis of our political disease is very cogent and not specific to any political party. He makes the same case that I've been trying to articulate. American politics abandoned the forebrain some time back and went purely for the politics of emotion and personality. Facts and logic were whipped together from the Temple in favor of fear, emotional manipulation and wedge issues.

Not to pick on the Right, but one excellent example came from Lee Atwater. As he was dying he bitterly repented of many of the things he'd done. In particular and at great length he said that his political success was based on appealing to blind fear and on campaigns to personally destroy opponents based on emotional manipulation. Information, according to that very successful strategist, was anathema to the way politics is done now.

There is certainly a number of credulous cretins and batshit insane people out there who are actively opposed to the use of the higher faculties like planning, reason, facts and facing up to uncomfortable truths. Leaving them aside (preferably back in the trees eating bananas with their feet) most people probably think that the problems we are facing are real and will have to be solved with hard work and a lot of attention to reality. Unfortunately, that is not the way one gets or maintains power these days. Careful analysis and solutions based on thought are simply not part of the political process at any level. All that is permitted is blind parroting of the Revealed Talking Points (anyone's Revealed Talking Points )

An intelligent and informed electorate is inconvenient. It might act in its own interest rather than that of the people who have bought and paid for the country. That's why every effort is made to keep the sheep scared, blind and ignorant. Torture? The subprime mess? Falling real wages? Health care? Corruption? QUICK FIND A BRITTNEY STORY! OJ! REALITY SHOWS!

You see it among the Dems. The Republican Revolution that swept the GOP into Congressional power represented a 7% change among the voters. The MSM talks about how the Democrats "squeaked "by with, err, about 9%. And it wasn't DLC neocons like Pelosi, Reid and Clinton who are basically Republicans with a smiley face. It was by a significant shift to the Progressive wing of the Party. But that doesn't fit the official model of the bought and paid for. So even among the Democrats the Progressives were subject to purely emotional attacks by their colleagues and told not to ask inconvenient questions.

It's not the province of any particular political Party. It is a redefinition of the entire style of politics which is leading us straight off the edge of the ****ing cliff as a nation and possibly as a species.

 

[tellner]

The Dems have a couple good candidates. Leaving aside the smears and vicious personal attacks by members of his own Party, let alone the Republicans, Dennis Kucinich has his head screwed on straight. His ideas are not politically popular, but they actually take reality into account.

Edwards isn't bad.

Howard Dean was a little too dangerous to the Party Powers That Be so he was side-lined.

Clinton is a Republican to all intents and purposes. And since being elected Senator she's "triangulated" so far to the right it's hard to tell what if anything she actually believes. Except that she'll do whatever the DLC (not DNC) says is non-controversial and will go along with GOP policies.

The Republican candidates are trying to distance themselves from George Bush and his policies. Except that their campaign platforms are word-for-word identical to the current Administration's.

The only honest one there who really stands for anything other than "Keep doing what we've been doing. Sit down. Shut up. Wait for the Rapture to make it all better," is Ron Paul. Some of his stuff passed the white waters of insanity and is calmly sculling about in a pool on the other side. But at least he believes in civil liberties, human rights and the Rule of Law rather than Men. This does not sit well with his Party, so he's being smeared almost as badly as Edwards or Kucinich.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

And of course almost all the Republican (or anybody acting like a "Republican") candidates but one are out???

While Im not beyond criticizing the Republicans for their inadequacies, Im no fan of the "Democrat Party" either......so......you were saying?

I didnt intend for this thread to get into the 08' election though. I was just noting how some things said by Pres. Clinton then would be trashed by the "libs" now if said by a "conservative". Not that the same couldnt be said the other way around. But I do believe that the basic ideas the President was saying above were agreed with by the "conservatives" of the time. I personally wasnt a Clinton fan (suprise suprise) having been in the military at that time, but I didnt espouse such venom for the government or my country as the "libs" of today seem to. I was all for McVeighs execution and wasnt interseted in trying to "understand" his twisted reasoning. I dont see the "other side" acting the same way in regards to our country. At least thats how I see things.

 

[Flying Crane]

well, I can certainly find things to disagree with, no matter who might have said them.

This passage comes to mind:

"I say to you, all of you,....there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government."

OK, obviously someone who hates his own country is not patriotic, but you can definitely love your country and despise your government, and hate that actions that your government takes in your name. If you feel your government has gotten onto a bad path and no longer serves the people in a fair and honorable way, that is a government to despise. The next step is to work for change and making it what it ought to be, for the benefit of all. There is absolutely nothing unpatriotic about that.

Blind acceptance of whatever the government does is not patriotism. Calling the government to task, and insisting that it and our elected leadership answer to the people for what they have done, is patriotic.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't understand why someone would call this post 'conservative'.

Please help this poor boy to understand, what are the conservative principles that I should be seeing in this speech?

 

[CuongNhuka]

Yup. I'm reminded of Kissenger's comment regarding the Iran-Iraq war: "It's a pity they can't both lose."

It's possible. All we needed then was for some other country to get involved and beat them both. Which means all we need it to have a third party win.

GO GREEN PARTY!

 

[CuongNhuka]

If you feel your government has gotten onto a bad path and no longer serves the people in a fair and honorable way, that is a government to despise. The next step is to work for change and making it what it ought to be, for the benefit of all. There is absolutely nothing unpatriotic about that.

Remember my '5 obligations of a citizen'? Remember number 5? "it is the duty of the citizen to clean out the government when it becomes corrupt, and destroy it when it beocmes too corrupt".

 

[CuongNhuka]

I don't understand why someone would call this post 'conservative'.

Please help this poor boy to understand, what are the conservative principles that I should be seeing in this speech?

It's political, and thats about it.

 

[Makalakumu]

...there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government...

This sentiment doesn't surprise me at all coming from President Clinton. They (democrats and republicans) are all firm defenders of the establishment and they are both going to use the same rhetoric whenever it seems fit. This speech is nothing but the same politik that we've had in America for a long time. It's the type of shallow politik that minimizes everything the founding fathers wrote in the Consitution and maximizes the irrational appeal to obedience.

 

[Mr. E]

OK, obviously someone who hates his own country is not patriotic, but you can definitely love your country and despise your government, and hate that actions that your government takes in your name.

Perhaps if you inserted the word "administration" instead of "Government" your post would be clearer.

Loving your country is not about real estate or having happy thoughts about your neighbors. There are fundementals upon which a government is built. Upnorthkyosa made me realize this when he talked about the establishment.

In America there are certain fundemental ideas and principles around which the country was founded. They can be found in the constitution.

You may hate Bush with a passion, but if you still think that the system of government set up by the constitution is a good one, you love America. But if you only use the constitution when it suits you and have ideals that counter the spirit of that document, then you do not love America.

Some people claim to love America so much that they want to bring a paradise to it. It could be a socialist utopia or what they think God/Allah/Cuthulu/Krishna would want for humanity. As much as they really are driven by a love and desire to bring what is best to society, if to achieve that aim they have to ignore or toss out the constitution and the rights of others to live their lives differently then they hate America!

There are people that look at dictatorships like Cuba and think that America should be more like it. They do not love America, they love Cuba and want others to be more like Cuba rather than have Cuba adopt the ideals of the American constitution.

They hate America. Not just Bush or Clinton before him. They despise anything that gets in the way of them being able to force their views on others.

And they will use the constitution to further their end if they think it will work. Some of them will support one candidate or another to try to turn the country more toward their view of things. Later they may think that they can change things by other means once the population is trained to a new way of thinking or they have enough power. As long as it works, they will support the ballot box. But when that will not get them what they want, they feel free to use other means.

President Clinton was blasting people that hated America- not just him. Maybe he was trying to cast mud on those that opposed him as well since that is the type of thing he does. But those people that blew up buildings were not fighting for a new administration, they were fighting for a government where important parts of the constitution were thrown out. That is the type of person that hates America. And they exist on both sides of the spectrum. They still exist today taking advantage of political situations whenever they can.

You can hate a particular president and still love America. And you can even support a president and still hate America, because your support for that politician is only a means to an end of making America more like Cuba or the middle ages than the spirit of the constitution.

 

[tellner]

BH, I'm trying really hard not to make this a piece of "Coke vs. Pepsi" BS. The underlying problem isn't whether the right wingnuts and Repugnicans have better tasting twaddle. It's that we've reduced the political process and the institutions of civil society to precisely that sort of name calling and hate-filled stupidity instead of actually trying to solve problems and set things up for a better future.

 

[CoryKS]

BH, I'm trying really hard not to make this a piece of "Coke vs. Pepsi" BS. The underlying problem isn't whether the right wingnuts and Repugnicans have better tasting twaddle. It's that we've reduced the political process and the institutions of civil society to precisely that sort of name calling and hate-filled stupidity instead of actually trying to solve problems and set things up for a better future.

What your cola lacks in taste, it makes up for in rich irony goodness. :rofl: