An editorial we can all learn something from.

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond
IMO, the writer is a closet neocon who can't stand to see liberals freely express themselves.

Not surprising.

Neocons don't hesitate to say what they believe. I don't either. It's not like any of them are saying anything surprising. What am I supposed to do? Wring my hands over what they might think about my opinion? Like the Democratic Party?

Try taking a step back and realizing that liberals are just as bad as conservatives. That other peoples' opinions aren't always wrong. That you don't have all the answers.

I agree with that statement, and I think any time you have a large concentration of any particular viewpoint, dissenting views tend to be not well received. Try being an agnostic at a Catholic school sometime and you'll see what I mean

The article is stupid because the author paints this as a liberal only problem, which it clearly is not. The fact is that a lot of people are jackasses, and jackasses feel safer when they have a majority on their side. What I find interesting is that even given the number of incidents at that school, it must have been a very tiny minority of the total liberal students there. Like I said, it's more jackasses feeling safe in the majority than a statement about liberals in general.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

You neocons can dish it out but you can't take it.

Typical that you would label anyone with a dissenting viewpoint as a "NeoCon," because in doing so you dismiss my points in favor of stereotyping a political mindset...not all conservatives are NeoCons, and not everyone who is critical of liberals shares a far right ideology.

It is not a question of dishing anything out...it is a question of acknowledging that despite attempts of liberals to demonize conservatives (and vice versa) for a particular behavior, in this case censorship, you kind find plenty of evidence that demonstrates both sides are equally guilty of supressing, misunderstanding or otherwise avoiding the valid arguments presented by the opposing viewpoint.

Apparently you are unable to "take" a blatant example of liberal hypocracy...interesting that you automatically dismiss the author, despite the fact that it is a fairly well written and balanced editorial piece...if you want an example of NeoCon editorials, read anything written by Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the likes...this is an example of a conservative simply commenting on something going on at this particular school that contradicts everything liberalism is supposed to champion.

It's an unfair editorial because it's about a political idea (liberalism) instead of the way idiots claiming to believe in that idea are behaving. As I said in my previous post, a small number of people will almost always behave like jackasses when their view is in the majority.

In other words, instead of attacking the guilty students, the author lumps them under the title "liberal", even though they are a tiny minority in that group.

 

[Starbuck1975]

In other words, instead of attacking the guilty students, the author lumps them under the title "liberal", even though they are a tiny minority in that group.

They are hardly a minority in that group, and the problem is not the students but rather the teachers who are encouraging, promoting and facilitating such behavior...and the attitudes and behavior of these students is not isolated to one high school campus...you will find these trends on many college campuses where there is a liberal bias...and the author rightfully lumps these students under the title liberal because it is their liberal ideology that is dictating this behavior.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Condor
The author lost all credibility when he said that "All liberals are not communist".

In the interest of promoting accuracy, let me say this:

Communists are NOT Liberal
Today's Liberals are NOT Liberal
TRUE Liberals today are not called Liberals.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
IMO, the writer is a closet neocon who can't stand to see liberals freely express themselves.

Of course you do. Now get back in the closet and peel the labels off those Kerry buttons so you can re-use them in 4 years in case the Democrats manage to pick a GOOD candidate.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond
IMO, the writer is a closet neocon who can't stand to see liberals freely express themselves.

Not surprising.

Neocons don't hesitate to say what they believe. I don't either. It's not like any of them are saying anything surprising. What am I supposed to do? Wring my hands over what they might think about my opinion? Like the Democratic Party?

It's not that the Democratic party's candidates wring their hands over what Conservatives might think, it's that they worry about what ANYONE might think and they try to impress *everyone*. Hell, to an extent even Republicans are doing this today. Observe Bush's refusal to say or do ANYTHING about our open borders policy because he's afraid of upsetting the Mexican vote (at least, pre-election; the next 4 years remain to be seen).

In the end you have to reach the obvious conclusion: Neither Democrats nor Republicans are at all SERIOUS about their stated "Principles."

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
that jacket is pretty unfair to George Bush 1.

Yeah, really. That "asshole" was a WWII vet and hero, and our last preident that actually faught in a war.

He bailed out on his crew. Some hero.

And, might I remind you, "we" chose a fraud over a Vietnam vet and hero. Bush's father was the last president to serve in a war by the choice of the American people who'd rather have an AWOL draft dodger than someone who actually fought in a war.

Yeah, John Kerry: A hero for his 4 month stint in Vietnam, LOL.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond
IMO, the writer is a closet neocon who can't stand to see liberals freely express themselves.

Not surprising.

Neocons don't hesitate to say what they believe. I don't either. It's not like any of them are saying anything surprising. What am I supposed to do? Wring my hands over what they might think about my opinion? Like the Democratic Party?

Try taking a step back and realizing that liberals are just as bad as conservatives. That other peoples' opinions aren't always wrong. That you don't have all the answers.

I never said I did. But I can recognize a neocon masquerading as a "moderate" who has an agenda to further. This guy just can't stand to hear any opinion but his own.

It's becoming a real problem in this country, one opinion rule that is.

Listen, do us a favor and go spend the rest of the year in North Korea, in one of the slave labor camps. Then come and tell us about how awful "One opinion rule" really is.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
You neocons can dish it out but you can't take it.

But that's OK, because you can't really dish it out anyway

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: BBond
I read the entire article. He's a neocon masquerading as a moderate who can't stand to see anyone express their opinion if it differs with his narrow neocon radical view.

I'd hardly consider the author a Neocon.

That's because you're JustanAverageGuy, whereas BBond is, well...rather *below* average

Jason

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

In other words, instead of attacking the guilty students, the author lumps them under the title "liberal", even though they are a tiny minority in that group.

They are hardly a minority in that group, and the problem is not the students but rather the teachers who are encouraging, promoting and facilitating such behavior...and the attitudes and behavior of these students is not isolated to one high school campus...you will find these trends on many college campuses where there is a liberal bias...and the author rightfully lumps these students under the title liberal because it is their liberal ideology that is dictating this behavior.

See, I knew I'd get it out of one of you guys eventually. Liberal ideology dictates attacking those who disagree with you, huh? Glad I know the starting point of your logic, but I must have missed that part in the rule book.

My cluestick is at the cleaners, so you'll have to beat yourself over the head, but a bias is not the same as you being persecuted. There is nothing wrong with a liberal college, or a conservative one for that matter. When there is a large majority, the jerks will tend to come out because they feel safe. But that is not a basis for judging the entire group, because the vast majority of the people in those groups don't engage in such behavior.

I don't know what else to say, your conclusion seems to be somewhat popular, but it's really silly. Reminds me what happened after the riot at my school last spring that involved, top estimates, some 1,000 students. After that, people started acting like all students were rioters, despite the fact that 1,000 out of 27,000 students is less than 4% of the population. It was fairly "widespread" too, until you looked at the big picture. Of course I'm sure you would have sided against the students too, many of them are big bad liberals after all.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I agree with that statement, and I think any time you have a large concentration of any particular viewpoint, dissenting views tend to be not well received. Try being an agnostic at a Catholic school sometime and you'll see what I mean

I've done the opposite - I'm a Catholic at an extremely secular school.

 

[vwtankgirl]

Originally posted by: BBond
And, might I remind you, "we" chose a fraud over a Vietnam vet and hero. Bush's father was the last president to serve in a war by the choice of the American people who'd rather have an AWOL draft dodger than someone who actually fought in a war.

Now now... those records were accidentally destroyed, remember. His CO says he was there, even if nobody else saw him.
Must have been his twin bother.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
that jacket is pretty unfair to George Bush 1.

Yeah, really. That "asshole" was a WWII vet and hero, and our last preident that actually faught in a war.

He bailed out on his crew. Some hero.

And, might I remind you, "we" chose a fraud over a Vietnam vet and hero. Bush's father was the last president to serve in a war by the choice of the American people who'd rather have an AWOL draft dodger than someone who actually fought in a war.

You have a link for Bush Sr. statement of him bailing on his crew? From my understanding he flew many missions, and was shot down and rescued during another.

Link

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond
You neocons can dish it out but you can't take it.

Heh heh.. Put the mirror down, Bob..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Condor
The author lost all credibility when he said that "All liberals are not communist".

Whereupon you make yourself no different than the outspoken young liberals (and the teachers who allow such behavior) that the author is writing about. Simply the other side of the same coin.

That was a good article. Too bad it falls upon mostly deaf ears. Those teachers and school administrators are entirely in the wrong for allowing such behavior among the students. Just saying "asshole" out loud at my high school would have resulted in a suspension. I can't imagine that sweatshirt being allowed, nor should it. An individual's right to free speech does not include defamatory speech.

To nitpick, the author was wrong about one thing: the US is in a state of perpetual war as described in 1984, and has been since before that book was published in 1949. First was WWII (which was justified), but then there was the Russian A-bomb crisis, the Korean War, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, more Cold War, the Vietnam War, more Cold War, the Middle East Crisis, more Cold War, the War on Drugs (without some other nation to fight we decided to wage war on ourselves), end of the Cold War, straight to Iraq War I, more War on Drugs, Bosnia, and now the War on Terror.
The United States has not known peacetime in more than 60 years -- 3 generations. The most startling shift came in 1992 and 1994, when a younger generation was elected to power who had never known peacetime in their entire lifetimes. Is it any surprise that we have come to fight amongst each other as we do? There are no rules in war.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
that jacket is pretty unfair to George Bush 1.

Yeah, really. That "asshole" was a WWII vet and hero, and our last preident that actually faught in a war.

He bailed out on his crew. Some hero.

And, might I remind you, "we" chose a fraud over a Vietnam vet and hero. Bush's father was the last president to serve in a war by the choice of the American people who'd rather have an AWOL draft dodger than someone who actually fought in a war.

You have a link for Bush Sr. statement of him bailing on his crew? From my understanding he flew many missions, and was shot down and rescued during another.

Link

not a Bush I fan but i cant really begrudge him his service to this country.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
that jacket is pretty unfair to George Bush 1.

Yeah, really. That "asshole" was a WWII vet and hero, and our last preident that actually faught in a war.

He bailed out on his crew. Some hero.

And, might I remind you, "we" chose a fraud over a Vietnam vet and hero. Bush's father was the last president to serve in a war by the choice of the American people who'd rather have an AWOL draft dodger than someone who actually fought in a war.

You have a link for Bush Sr. statement of him bailing on his crew? From my understanding he flew many missions, and was shot down and rescued during another.

Link

not a Bush I fan but i cant really begrudge him his service to this country.

I don't begrudge him his service to this country either. But I do begrudge his son and his party begrudging the service of another veteran.

 

[imported_Condor]

Vietnam vet and hero. The best thing Kerry did for the troops in Vietnam was to get out after 4 months and 3 Purple hearts - before his reckless bravado got good troops killed. John Wayne lieutenants like Kerry were fragged there. The best thing he did so far in his life was a gracious Concession. That surprised me. I thought he would pull a Gore.