Pacifism and the Left

[Synthaholic]

Look at that, you did it! You answered a yes or no question! You'll be ready for big-boy pants soon. Now that we know you can answer yes or no questions you have no excuse for not doing so.
We will leave aside for how it reflects on the university that they would graduate a drooling moron like you...

You're the one who can't read past one sentence in a response...

And you have serious anger management issues, seriously. If I knew you in real life, I'd recommend you get help.

You noticed that too! When its someone like this, the best way to deal it is the ignore feature since nothing of value is ever added.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[JoeB131]

You're the one who can't read past one sentence in a response...

And you have serious anger management issues, seriously. If I knew you in real life, I'd recommend you get help.

You noticed that too! When its someone like this, the best way to deal it is the ignore feature since nothing of value is ever added.

Ironic post is ironic.

I'll give Katz credit. He understands what he is responding to and puts together an argument.

As opposed to Unkotard, who just screams at everyone who disagrees with him.

 

[Moonglow]

Is it "guy" or "dude"? Pick one way of making yourself sound like a dim-witted teenager.

wait for his next mature, intelligent, response

And the pussy ducks yet another question. What a pathetic turd.

is that an oxymoron?

 

[Unkotare]

You noticed that too! When its someone like this, the best way to deal it is the ignore feature since nothing of value is ever added.

Ironic post is ironic.

I'll give Katz credit. He understands what he is responding to and puts together an argument.

As opposed to Unkotard, who just screams at everyone who disagrees with him.

Do you think that little passive-aggressive whine will distract from the FACT that you are too much of a pussy to answer any direct question?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ahhh a worthless piece of shit that couldn't even retire as enlisted talking about officer training.

FYI....officer "school" is different than ROTC, pretty much a few months of bootcamp compared to a couple years of ROTC or at the Academy. You can't insult ROTC by talking about OCS/OTS, idiot.....but you wouldn't know that because you were never officer material.

You're the idiot in the military that is given 1 task and then another enlisted person's day is to make sure you do that task without sleeping on the job, being AWOL, fucking up the task, etc.

It's kinda like your job in a factory today, see a pattern asswipe? You're on the dumb scale of life along with being a piece of shit.l It is a terrible thing to go through life fat, drunk and stupid, Cleatus.

Oh, the majority of officers are from ROTC....like your hero Colin Powell.

E-6.....wow.

I was an E-3 when I was a cadet before pinning on O-1.

You're a closet Nazi, you hate the Jews so shut the fuck up.

Oh, you're still claiming Russia isn't a world problem when they were going to send ATTACK helicopters to help Assad kill more Syrians.

Guy, you aren't going to convince me that anyone was ever dumb enough to give you a commission... not even in the reserves...

ROTC. Where all the worthless officers came from. It's like that Benny Hill skit where you had teh guy who couldn't do anything right and they sent him to officer school.

So now you are concerned with dead Syrians? Really? So if Obama intervenes, will you support him? Somehow, I doubt it.

My view. We don't get involved on ANY side over there. These fucks have been killing each other for hundreds of years. They'll still be killing each other hundreds of years from now. We need to stop sticking our dicks into the hornets' nest and whining about how we got stung.

 

[JoeB131]

Ahhh a worthless piece of shit that couldn't even retire as enlisted talking about officer training.

FYI....officer "school" is different than ROTC, pretty much a few months of bootcamp compared to a couple years of ROTC or at the Academy. You can't insult ROTC by talking about OCS/OTS, idiot.....but you wouldn't know that because you were never officer material.

You're the idiot in the military that is given 1 task and then another enlisted person's day is to make sure you do that task without sleeping on the job, being AWOL, fucking up the task, etc.

It's kinda like your job in a factory today, see a pattern asswipe? You're on the dumb scale of life along with being a piece of shit.l It is a terrible thing to go through life fat, drunk and stupid, Cleatus.

Oh, the majority of officers are from ROTC....like your hero Colin Powell.
]

And the majority of ROTC officers were losers and idiots. I was in college ROTC. At least until my parents died and I had more important priorities... But it was an awful way to pick and train officers. I had more respect for the OCS guys, generally.

Most of the ROTC officers I encountered were kind of useless. The ones we liked were carried by their NCO's. The ones who were Nedermyers usually got sandbagged by their NCO's and capped out at O-2.

incidently, guy, as I've told you a bout a dozen times, I don't work on an assembly line. I work in an office. My job is to make sure that we have the materials we need to keep lines running. I've repeated this about a dozen times, and frankly, you don't seem to comprehend that not everyone in a factory works on the assembly line.

In fact, comprehension seems to be one of your limiting factors.

But here's one for you. If we send all our factories to China, exactly how are we a world power anymore?

 

[Truthmatters]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

you said it PC so stop lying about it

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/291099-people-good-damn-it.html

 

[regent]

Some definitions of political ideologies do begin with man's view of man. Some writers of political ideology begin with the question, is man basically good or basically bad? Can it be that from this basic concept one's political beliefs are formed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

you said it PC so stop lying about it

Now, now....you know I never lie.

In fact, you posted this above:
"The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances,..."

It's true, isn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some definitions of political ideologies do begin with man's view of man. Some writers of political ideology begin with the question, is man basically good or basically bad? Can it be that from this basic concept one's political beliefs are formed?

Perhaps.

Madison did so in Federalist 51:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

 

[Trajan]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

you said it PC so stop lying about it

Now, now....you know I never lie.

In fact, you posted this above:
"The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances,..."

It's true, isn't it.

so true too, is the closing of the mind, which any good proggie and lib pushes beyond all get out. when one ceases to think, they become eloi, wishy washy androgynous and ultimately malleable silly putty in the hands of the few busy body do gooder 'intellectuals' left who delight in managing peoples lives.


to quote a gifted historian-

"You can't have a fight," ecause you don't have two sides, the other side won."

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Talk about a load of nonsense. While you have pacifism elements on the left, you also have them on the right (see Robert Taft historically, or Ron Paul today). I can't really think of any prominent politicians on the left today who are pacifists (see Obama's frequent references to Niebuhr).

I'd also question the claim that "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good". That's true in the right's approach to foreign policy, but it's not even remotely true to most other policy areas. You have to believe that man is inherently good to believe unregulated markets will balance themselves.

Neither Paul nor Taft were pacifists. I don't believe you know what pacifism is.

Minding your own business isn't pacifism. It's good sense.

 

[regent]

Still it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming. It was the Republicans that were the party of isolation, American-First and Martin, Barton and Fish. In some cases FDR by passed the Republicans to begin Lend Lease and aid to Britain programs. Maybe it depends more on the reality of the crisis than pacifism. We didn't get Fifty-four-forty and we didn't fight, another potential war averted.
Wars do have their advantages though, they bring the nation together, makes for super patriotism and enhances the party in power, up to a point and then it the war can backfire.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming. It was the Republicans that were the party of isolation, American-First and Martin, Barton and Fish. In some cases FDR by passed the Republicans to begin Lend Lease and aid to Britain programs. Maybe it depends more on the reality of the crisis than pacifism. We didn't get Fifty-four-forty and we didn't fight, another potential war averted.
Wars do have their advantages though, they bring the nation together, makes for super patriotism and enhances the party in power, up to a point and then it the war can backfire.

"... it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming."

1. You are clueless.....

Late 30's???
On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense.

I get such a kick out of the hagiography involved when you robots speak of FDR. Tell me, do you have a little shrine such as one sees in the Chinese restaurants, with fresh oranges for the gods?



2. While the FDR administration won the war, there is reason to believe that military decisions made things worse.

a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.


3. He prepared us for war???

You sure?

FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.
For details of the above, see "FDR Goes To War," Folsom and Folsom


But, heck, reggie.....you did a great job as lookout at Pearl Harbor.

 

[regent]

Still it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming. It was the Republicans that were the party of isolation, American-First and Martin, Barton and Fish. In some cases FDR by passed the Republicans to begin Lend Lease and aid to Britain programs. Maybe it depends more on the reality of the crisis than pacifism. We didn't get Fifty-four-forty and we didn't fight, another potential war averted.
Wars do have their advantages though, they bring the nation together, makes for super patriotism and enhances the party in power, up to a point and then it the war can backfire.

"... it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming."

1. You are clueless.....

Late 30's???
On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense.

I get such a kick out of the hagiography involved when you robots speak of FDR. Tell me, do you have a little shrine such as one sees in the Chinese restaurants, with fresh oranges for the gods?



2. While the FDR administration won the war, there is reason to believe that military decisions made things worse.

a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.


3. He prepared us for war???

You sure?

FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.
For details of the above, see "FDR Goes To War," Folsom and Folsom


But, heck, reggie.....you did a great job as lookout at Pearl Harbor.

Defense preparation was not a priority until the fall of France. America had only one priority, the great depression. That's why Republicans were able to keep America's eyes off of defense, and why FDR had such a difficult time convincing America, Democrats and Republicans that a new threat was emerging.
As for the president's incompetence, historians have always FDR rated in the top three presidents and in 2010 the big honcho, number one. Oh and Bush was rated fifth worst.
As for Pearl Harbor, l I had never heard of Pearl Harbor until the newsies were yelling extra extra, Pearl Harbor bombed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming. It was the Republicans that were the party of isolation, American-First and Martin, Barton and Fish. In some cases FDR by passed the Republicans to begin Lend Lease and aid to Britain programs. Maybe it depends more on the reality of the crisis than pacifism. We didn't get Fifty-four-forty and we didn't fight, another potential war averted.
Wars do have their advantages though, they bring the nation together, makes for super patriotism and enhances the party in power, up to a point and then it the war can backfire.

"... it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming."

1. You are clueless.....

Late 30's???
On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense.

I get such a kick out of the hagiography involved when you robots speak of FDR. Tell me, do you have a little shrine such as one sees in the Chinese restaurants, with fresh oranges for the gods?



2. While the FDR administration won the war, there is reason to believe that military decisions made things worse.

a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.


3. He prepared us for war???

You sure?

FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.
For details of the above, see "FDR Goes To War," Folsom and Folsom


But, heck, reggie.....you did a great job as lookout at Pearl Harbor.

Defense preparation was not a priority until the fall of France. America had only one priority, the great depression. That's why Republicans were able to keep America's eyes off of defense, and why FDR had such a difficult time convincing America, Democrats and Republicans that a new threat was emerging.
As for the president's incompetence, historians have always FDR rated in the top three presidents and in 2010 the big honcho, number one. Oh and Bush was rated fifth worst.
As for Pearl Harbor, l I had never heard of Pearl Harbor until the newsies were yelling extra extra, Pearl Harbor bombed.

1. "... it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming."

Who wrote that before I gave a remedial in history?
Oh...right....you did.


2. "As for the president's incompetence, historians have always FDR rated in the top three presidents and in 2010 the big honcho, number one."
Haven't you heard? Historians are notoriously Liberal.


3. "Oh and Bush was rated fifth worst."
You missed this last week? Bush now same popularity rating as the mistake-in-the-White House.
It's the shape of things to come.
True story.

4. "As for Pearl Harbor, l I had never heard of Pearl Harbor until the newsies were yelling extra extra, Pearl Harbor bombed."
So....you were part of Sadat's Security Detail???


I can see, you didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[regent]

"... it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming."

1. You are clueless.....

Late 30's???
On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense.

I get such a kick out of the hagiography involved when you robots speak of FDR. Tell me, do you have a little shrine such as one sees in the Chinese restaurants, with fresh oranges for the gods?



2. While the FDR administration won the war, there is reason to believe that military decisions made things worse.

a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.


3. He prepared us for war???

You sure?

FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.
For details of the above, see "FDR Goes To War," Folsom and Folsom


But, heck, reggie.....you did a great job as lookout at Pearl Harbor.

Defense preparation was not a priority until the fall of France. America had only one priority, the great depression. That's why Republicans were able to keep America's eyes off of defense, and why FDR had such a difficult time convincing America, Democrats and Republicans that a new threat was emerging.
As for the president's incompetence, historians have always FDR rated in the top three presidents and in 2010 the big honcho, number one. Oh and Bush was rated fifth worst.
As for Pearl Harbor, l I had never heard of Pearl Harbor until the newsies were yelling extra extra, Pearl Harbor bombed.

1. "... it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming."

Who wrote that before I gave a remedial in history?
Oh...right....you did.


2. "As for the president's incompetence, historians have always FDR rated in the top three presidents and in 2010 the big honcho, number one."
Haven't you heard? Historians are notoriously Liberal.


3. "Oh and Bush was rated fifth worst."
You missed this last week? Bush now same popularity rating as the mistake-in-the-White House.
It's the shape of things to come.
True story.

4. "As for Pearl Harbor, l I had never heard of Pearl Harbor until the newsies were yelling extra extra, Pearl Harbor bombed."
So....you were part of Sadat's Security Detail???


I can see, you didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Popularity rating is a little different than rating by 238 noted historians and presidential experts. While ratings by historians do change they change very slowly. Harding started out as worst president in the first rating, 1948, he still holds that spot. And Bush, I suspect, will be able to hold his fifth worst president slot for some years to come.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Defense preparation was not a priority until the fall of France. America had only one priority, the great depression. That's why Republicans were able to keep America's eyes off of defense, and why FDR had such a difficult time convincing America, Democrats and Republicans that a new threat was emerging.
As for the president's incompetence, historians have always FDR rated in the top three presidents and in 2010 the big honcho, number one. Oh and Bush was rated fifth worst.
As for Pearl Harbor, l I had never heard of Pearl Harbor until the newsies were yelling extra extra, Pearl Harbor bombed.

1. "... it was the Democrats that were called war mongers in the late Thirties when FDR pushed America's rearming."

Who wrote that before I gave a remedial in history?
Oh...right....you did.


2. "As for the president's incompetence, historians have always FDR rated in the top three presidents and in 2010 the big honcho, number one."
Haven't you heard? Historians are notoriously Liberal.


3. "Oh and Bush was rated fifth worst."
You missed this last week? Bush now same popularity rating as the mistake-in-the-White House.
It's the shape of things to come.
True story.

4. "As for Pearl Harbor, l I had never heard of Pearl Harbor until the newsies were yelling extra extra, Pearl Harbor bombed."
So....you were part of Sadat's Security Detail???


I can see, you didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Popularity rating is a little different than rating by 238 noted historians and presidential experts. While ratings by historians do change they change very slowly. Harding started out as worst president in the first rating, 1948, he still holds that spot. And Bush, I suspect, will be able to hold his fifth worst president slot for some years to come.

1. "According to a University of Miami study, those historical rankings of American presidents that pop up every year or so are significantly weighted in favor of Democrats, thanks to the liberal leanings of academia"
Study: Liberal leanings hurt Republicans' place in history - Washington Times


2. I saw Reagan rated #18....

Then this:

CBS Sunday Morning had a segment on yesterday discussing how historians and journalists would view *. They interviewed the usual lackeys such as Dan Bartlett and David Frum extolling chimpy's virtues, but my mouth dropped when Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents!
WTF? Historian Douglas Brinkley calls Reagan one of the Top 5 Greatest Presidents - Democratic Underground


That's what is going to happen with Bush.....
No?
Then consider how many of his policies the current windbag is keeping in place.
Think about what that means.

 

[Agit8r]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

Another VERY familiar rant

"the education to pacifism must of necessity have its effect right through life until it reaches the humblest individual lives. The conception of pacifism is logical if I once admit a general equality amongst peoples and human beings. For in that case what sense is there in conflict? The conception of pacifism translated into practice and applied to all spheres must gradually lead to the destruction of the competitive instinct, to the destruction of the ambition for outstanding achievement. I cannot say: in politics we will be pacifists, we reject the idea of the necessity for life to safeguard itself through conflict - but in economics we want to remain keenly competitive."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)