Re: Destroying America
- From: Dave K<dave.k@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:36:07 GMT
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:41:50 -0400, Just Judy <Just_Joody@xxxxxxxxxx>
>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:25:56 GMT, Dave K<dave.k@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Quite frankly, this newsgroup would be really boring, and scary, if
>>everyone thought the same. What I mean by the scary part is that,
>>allowing that this group is not necessarily representative of the
>>whole, it would be pretty scary if everyone toed the right wingnut
>>party line. That's the way it works in the very countries we are
>>having issues with.
> Did you see a comment I posted recently about one of the other
>newsservers where everyone agreed, and were all
>lovey-dovey_all_the_time? <yawn> To me, it was a bore. Nice is good,
>but I enjoy a little tussle now & then.
Indeed, I saw it. I also meant to add that into the discussion, but
left it out.
>> Would you not think it a positive development if some liberal
>>agendas were introduced into the muslim world rather than the
>>conservative muslim agenda? I know I would. Why would anyone think
>>it would be a different here if the right was the only position?
> Dave, I have no idea what you're writing about. Agendas?
>Muslim world? Conservative Muslim agenda?
My favorite definition of conservative is, " Favoring traditional
views and values; tending to oppose change." I sort of liked,
"Archaic: A preservative agent or principle."
In that light, the agenda is a move to roll back to the olden days
of sharia, and other traditional values.
On the other hand, liberal; "a. Not limited to or by established,
traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas;
free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." And just
for fairness, "Obsolete: Morally unrestrained; licentious." <g>
Some examples of things are letting women run businesses, and dress
as they wish.
Does that make more sense?
(definitions from <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/>)
> I stopped reading the dogg's posts probably 4 months ago. I
>stopped because he, unlike others here, was a robot. He harvested
>stories, re-posted them in full, and offered no comment. To me, that
>translates to a bore.
> If I went to a barbecue party, and there were groups of people
>around, and one of them was merely reading publications aloud, I'd
>wander over to where there was conversation. Why should I react
>differently in usenet?
> Additionally, for the last several months I read his posts, he
>posted absolutely nothing original. He has an awesome sense of humor,
>and I've no doubt he's intelligent. But he is consumed by his hatred
>now. It's pathetic to witness.
> Now, let's add to the equation his habit of changing monikers.
>That is done for one reason only: to annoy. Do you visit people whose
>sole purpose is to annoy you? I don't.
I don't know why people do what they do. I read some of the
articles, skim some of them, and ignore a some. Some of them are more
interesting than others. Different POVs are good. If one doesn't
read them occasionally, different points of view, not any particular
person's posts, one can get stale.
> GWB is a scumbag. Unfortunately, he's a more honest scumbag
>than Kerry, and he was the only scumbag with a reasonable chance of
>beating Kerry. But if you think I'm going to spend my usenet time
>reading posts from someone who was formerly an enjoyable member (imo)
>you've got rocks in that there head of yours. ;)
Sometimes I do... Have rocks in my head I mean... ;)
>> It might be time to revisit what conservative, and liberal, mean.
>>Besides that, It is always entertaining to read a good argument for a
>>position. Here's hoping that some of those start to show up.
> I read the posts of folks here who support GWB, and those who
>intensely dislike GWB. At least they are honest in their posting
>habits, and have some comment to make other than, "Here it is; read it
>now; if you don't read it now, then you are also a scumbag."
Hmmm, I don't recall that being said, but I'll take your word for
it; I skip a lot of stuff anymore.
> As for the labels conservative and liberal, you may have
>noticed that I_HAVE_NEVER used those terms here. Likewise, in real
>life, their usage is merely furnished as an excuse for/against the
>person under discussion.
It is my goal to address the ideology, not necessarily the person. I
am not always successful. They are just terms, after all.
- A Midwest Conservative
- From: Amused
- A Midwest Conservative
- Prev by Date: Re: U.S. strips more freedom from citizens than terrorists ever could
- Next by Date: Re: U.S. strips more freedom from citizens than terrorists ever could
- Previous by thread: Re: Destroying America
- Next by thread: A Midwest Conservative