Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Your ideology is not superior
Published on November 19, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

I'm a conservative. I make no bones about it. I have plenty of liberal friends. Most of my "good" political discussions are with my friends who are liberal. I have a friend in New York who I talk to a few times a week and I respect his opinions immensely. He's also very liberal.

There is a basic problem in our country right now, however. I look at the positions my liberal friends take, listen to them, and ultimately decide I don't agree with them. But I respect their right to an opinion.  But all too often, liberals do not have that same respect for conservatives and their opinions. Supporting Bush's policies is not a sign of ignorance, greed, selfishness, or warmongering. In my case, I support Bush's policies because of careful consideration.

I do not agree with Bush on every issue. The deficit being a real issue for me. But overall, I consider him to be on the right side of many issues. I don't expect liberals to agree with me. But I do expect them to show some basic respect for my right to my opinion and not to assume that my opinions are inferior to theirs.

Some of my friends have tried to argue that "Well, both sides have their share of kooks that don't have any respect for the other side." Sure. Both sides have their kooks. But I am not going to accept that there's something even remotely approaching a balance.  The American left's most vocal advocates right now are much more militant than any other group. They have been for the past 4 years. They're hateful, nasty, and intolerant of other points of view.

Look at this website for instance: 

There's 500 pages of pretentious left wingers "apologizing" to the world that we elected Bush.  How arrogant.  There's the whole "Jesus Land" map floating around the net - implying that Kerry lost only because conservatives are a bunch of religious zealots. More arrogance.

Some would argue that since the liberals are the minority right now, that it makes sense for them to be more militant and vocal.  But you'd be hard pressed, even during the Clinton administration, to find evidence vast amounts of hateful, condescending arrogance from the right.

I never assume people who voted for Kerry were "stupid" or "moronic" or "selfish".  I simply feel that they supported Kerry because he was closer in line to their positions on a host of issues.

I think that liberals, by nature, are more arrogant than conservatives. And I'll tell you why: Because through their actions over the past few decades, liberals have demonstrated that they do not trust the democratic process.

Why do I say that? Two reasons:

First - they repeatedly have shown that they think elections are rigged and that's the only reason why they "lose". It's a good thing Kerry did lose Ohio. You know why? Because the monkey business in Wisconsin on election day would have been a bigger deal.  You see, Bush only lost Wisconsin by 11,000 votes. If Bush had won Wisconsin, Ohio wouldn't have mattered. But here's the thing, Democrats slashed all the tires on the Bush campaign's vehicles on election day.  In fact, the Republican HQs in Wisconsin were subject to repeated quasi-terrorist attacks during the final days.  You think that might have affected the Bush "get out the vote" efforts? You bet they did. In a major metro area, get out the vote drives, on election eve and election day generate tens of thousands of votes.  While Kerry supporters try to argue that Ohio was "Barely" for Bush (Bush won by 140,000 votes), the difference in Wisconsin really hits home. If you want to talk about dirty tricks, it was the Democrats who played the dirtiest.  Go ahead and Google it, try to find cases of Democratic operatives being attacked or kept from running their HQs in various states. They are few and far between. 

Here in Livonia Michigan, the big old giant Kerry signs shown proudly on Farmington Rd all the way up to election.  The big Bush signs? About a week before election someone painted "Nazi" on the Bush signs (which caused them to be taken down).  Sure, it's an "isolated" incident but it all adds up.

Second - The other reason I think it's clear that liberals don't trust the electorate has to do with their tactics.  Liberals use the courts to get their way rather than trying to get their way through the democratic process.  I've talked to liberals on-line, in email, and in person over the years and the same thing comes up "You can't count on the average person to do the right thing, that's why you need judges."  No. That's bullshit.  I happen to trust the average person to "do the right thing".

If the people of Hicksville USA want to allow a moment of silence in their classroom, that's fine with me.  If they want to put up a 10 commandments plaque in their class room, that's fine too. Only if something violates the constitution in a way that's unbeatable should judges get in.  The constitution, if you read the whole thing, is pretty clear on the matter - if it's not obviously covered by the constitution, it's left to the people to decide.  In fact, so insistent on that point were the founders that they added the 10th amendment lest there be any confusion. If it's not spelled out in the constitution, then the people have the right to make the law on a local level.

As an agnostic, I don't care about religion. But I do know that having a plaque showing the 10 commandments is not the same as establishing a state religion. At Christmas I put up a Christmas tree. Does that make me a pagan? I also put up a Nativity scene. Oh gosh, I'm so conflicted.

But liberals have shown that they don't trust the will of the people. They use the courts.  You want gay marriage? Fine. Make your case to the people. Don't go judge shopping.

But they don't make their case to the people because liberals, far more so than conservatives, have little (ahem) faith in the wisdom of the common man. Hence, when someone like George W. Bush gets elected, it doesn't occur to most of them that perhaps their views are out of touch with the mainstream. No, they instead argue that the people were somehow tricked. Or that they're just plain "stupid" or that they need to be "enlightened".

Many conservatives, such as myself, are outraged when our views are trivialized like that.  We look at the lives we lead, the accomplishments we've made, the contributions we provide to society and can't help but wonder where the liberal arrogance comes from.  For instance, red counties on average have a much lower crime rate than blue counties. Even counties that have similar populations. Why is that? Republicans tend to make more money. That's not a surprise. But are they Republicans because they're wealthy or are they wealthy because their life philosophy is more conducive to financial success? I believe it's the latter. Who gives more to charity? Which kind of people grow most of the food? Which kind of people create most of the jobs? Which kind of people are the ones to volunteer first to defend their country? Which ones are more likely to stay married? Which ones are more likely to have children in wedlock?

In other words, conservatives have plenty of room to be snobby - if they chose. But there seems to be a greater level of. well decency with the right.  If you're liberal and reading this you're probably outraged at that claim. But I can't conclude anything else. Even the right wing kooks I see on-line rarely get into venomous name calling nearly as easy as left wingers do.  The left still talks about McCarthyism as if it was yesterday. But I probably get called a "Nazi" once a week by some left winger.  I'm sorry but if you think my political beliefs are somehow extreme, you need to re-evaluate your positions. My positions on most issues are, at most, slightly right of center by any sort of objective measurement.

If the American left wants to have any influence in society, they need to get over themselves. They need to recognize that there are other view points that are equally valid to theirs. They need to recognize that diversity isn't just about skin pigment. They need to recognize that tolerance isn't just a catch-phrase. 

Comments (Page 7)
on Dec 24, 2004

Reply #90 By: whoman69 - 12/24/2004 11:53:55 AM
You seem to forget this is *draginols* site, not yours. He can pretty much say anything however and whenever he wants. If you don't like that then don't read his posts. Simple as that.

That's a load of crap. So the moderators don't have to follow their own terms of use? Sounds very Republican to me. Set up rules and then only enforce those rules when it does not involve one of their own. I suggest Moderator Draginol go and read his own terms of use again.

Since the *money* for this comes out of HIS pocket and not yours I would say he doesn't have to read anything. If I'm paying for something I'll do as I damn well please. As would you.
on Dec 24, 2004

Reply #89 By: whoman69 - 12/24/2004 11:50:34 AM
We've been through this before and proof was offered on this very subject. Kerry was told *no way* was he getting any more help from Europe.

You offer no proof, you simply toe the Republican line. I will not accept such a diplomatically challenged individual such as George W. Bush and those in the administration by saying that no further cooperation could be had from other nations. It doesn't have to be from Europe either. Saudi Arabia contributed very strongly to the first Gulf War but has almost no part in this action, nor does any arabic country.

Like I said proof was offered before and by me on another thread about 30 days ago, no less. But since your obviously too tired (spell that l-a-z-y) I'll do it once more.

From the Washington Times

Kerry says Franco-German troops unlikely

By Stephen Dinan and Rowan Scarborough

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.
Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained."
"Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities," he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.
In his continuing criticism of President Bush's conduct of the Iraq war and its aftermath, Mr. Kerry also pounced yesterday on statements by the Bush administration's former top civilian administrator in Iraq that more combat troops were needed in the immediate aftermath of the war in 2003.
L. Paul Bremer, former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said in a speech Monday that when he arrived in Baghdad on May 6, 2003, "horrid" looting was going on.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Mr. Bremer, who is writing a book on his experiences, told the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers at a conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
Mr. Bremer said having more troops in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would have been the "single most important change" the United States could have made.
His remarks were carried in a council press release posted Monday on its Web site.
Mr. Kerry said the speech confirmed the candidate's charges that Mr. Bush has mismanaged Iraq.
, the difficulties and the ways in which we best protect our troops and best accomplish this mission."
But the White House said Mr. Bush sided with his commanders who vouched for the force levels. And for his part, Mr. Bremer told the West Virginia meeting that he still endorsed the overall war objective of ousting Saddam, saying, "I am more than ever convinced that regime change was the right thing to do."
A Bush campaign aide said yesterday that Mr. Bremer and top generals, disagreed on troop levels in the early days of the occupation when looting and other criminal activity broke out throughout Iraq.
"Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field," campaign spokesman Brian Jones said. "That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory."
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack declined to say what advice Mr. Bremer gave the president, but said Mr. Bush honored all requests from the "chain of command." Mr. McCormack described the chain of command as commanders in the field and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"President Bush made it clear whatever commanders needed they were going to get and that is what happened," Mr. McCormack said.
The postwar troops level of about 145,000 was originally set by Gen. Tommy Franks and confirmed by his successor at U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid. The force dipped to about 130,000, before spiking to the 150,000 mark last spring as terrorists mounted uprisings in southern, northern and western Iraq. It was at that point that Mr. Bush approved a troop increase. The number has settled at 138,000 in recent months.
In public statements during his first few months in office, Mr. Bremer gave no hint that he thought troop numbers were too low. In fact, he endorsed them.
"I think the military commanders are confident we have enough troops on the ground, and I accept that analysis," Mr. Bremer said July 20, 2003, on "Meet the Press." "We have substantial, and in my belief, adequate numbers of troops."
Mr. Kerry's advisers told reporters yesterday morning they expected the White House would make Mr. Bremer back down from his comments, so they wanted to strike while they could.
"We're going to hit it before the administration makes him eat his words later today," adviser Michael McCurry said.
But criticism of the coalition by Mr. Kerry has led to ruffled feathers abroad.
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, the leader of one of the countries already contributing troops, sharply criticized Mr. Kerry for his frequent comments that no country besides the United States and Britain is contributing troops in a substantial way.
"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad," Mr. Kwasniewski said in an interview with Poland's TVN television, saying it was "immoral" to ignore the contributions of Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria and others.
Mr. Kerry yesterday didn't address those comments specifically, but said all current coalition members are to be praised.
"I admire and I respect all the countries who have been willing to be involved in any way whatsoever and I don't denigrate them," Mr. Kerry said yesterday. But he then went on to say, "The fact is that most of this is being carried by America and that's the truth, and Americans know it."
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Mr. Kerry's attitude toward Poland and Mr. Kwasniewski's response shows that Mr. Kerry wouldn't be able to put together the coalition he's claimed.
"President Kwasniewski has been resolute in understanding the importance of achieving victory in Iraq, unlike Senator Kerry, who has vacillated with every shifting political wind," Mr. Gillespie said.
Even before Mr. Kerry made his admission, France and Germany had made it clear that their absolute opposition to sending troops to Iraq was not a political calculation involving the U.S. election.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has categorically ruled out sending any soldiers, even to protect U.N. officials overseeing new elections, adding that "that's where it's going to remain." French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said his government will not send troops "either now or later."
The United States also has clashed with the two European nations in recent talks on reducing Iraq's $120 billion government debt, inherited from Saddam.
•Stephen Dinan reported from Tipton, Iowa. David R. Sands also contributed to this report from Washington.

True: as recent surveys have shown, if Europe could vote in November, Kerry would be elected in a landslide. American travelers to Europe these days can expect to be asked time and again, in a hopeful tone, whether Kerry is going to win come November. Earlier in the campaign, the Democratic candidate himself contended that foreign leaders privately favor him over President Bush: an admittedly clumsy claim, not backed up by names, that nonetheless wasn't wrong.

Not since the 1960s has a U.S. presidential contest stirred such passions, hopes, and fears across Europe. Most Europeans feel that they have much at stake in the November election; that its outcome will also determine the shape of their future. Citizens and elites alike are broadly convinced that a change of leadership in the White House is necessary not only to modify the terms of the Euro-American relationship (which are abysmal) but also for the future of the world's governance.

In designing his foreign policy plans however, Senator Kerry may be counting on that European sympathy a bit too much. Let's recap a few of his recent statements.

During his speech at the Democratic Convention in Boston (July 29), he said that he knows what to do in Iraq: "We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers." And he made the crowd recite with him the mantra: "Help is on the way."

A few days later, on Aug. 3, he got more specific in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, saying that he thinks he could attract enough international help in Iraq to make it a "reasonable" goal to replace most of the 140,000 U.S. troops currently stationed there with foreign forces within a first term as president.

On Aug. 9, talking with reporters during a campaign stop in Arizona, he upped his commitment by saying that his goal as president would be to reduce American troop levels in Iraq during his first six months in office – that is, by August 2005. "I believe if you do the kind of alliance-building that is available to us that it is appropriate to have a goal of reducing our troops over that period of time," he said.

On Sept. 1, while addressing members of the American Legion convened in Nashville, he repeated almost word for word the lines from his Boston speech.

And on Sept. 20, in that speech at NYU, he encapsulated his plan in the following words: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden."

From a European perspective, this is funny talk, particularly from a man who knows Europe well and who, by the admission of his own advisers, has not so far held any discussions with foreign leaders about committing more troops. Kerry is promising something whose likelihood is very close to zero. Help is not on the way for Iraq. Europe will not rush to "share the burden," nor to significantly reduce the cost of the Mesopotamian adventure to American taxpayers. Truth is, the United States will have to see Iraq through mostly by itself.

On one matter, Kerry is right: It is undoubtedly in everyone's interest to encourage some form of democratic stability in Iraq and to prevent it from becoming a failed state. But European politicians are not suicidal and that won't change even if John Kerry is elected.

A reminder: on March 15 the citizens of Spain voted out Prime Minister José Maria Aznar. He had supported the war despite overwhelming domestic opposition and had then, for political convenience, tried to manipulate the significance of the terrorist attacks that hit Madrid four days before the voting took place. (191 were killed, 1,800 wounded.) Even though, in the American political narrative, the Spanish vote was translated as "surrendering to the terrorists," the ousting of Aznar was a textbook example of a healthy democracy at work.

It was also a powerful reminder of just how widespread public rejection of the war in Iraq is, not just in Spain but in Europe as a whole. ((I know that "Europe" is a simplification of a complex reality, but bear with me.) Despite sympathy for American and British soldiers serving in the Middle East and for their families, a vast majority of Europeans consider the war in Iraq not only unnecessary and unjustified, but manufactured by the Bush administration for its own ends.

European politicians have continued to put on polite faces, but public opinion, particularly in France and Germany, countries that could make a difference, is vehemently against the idea of sending troops to Iraq or offering any other kind of significant direct help to "clean up Bush's mess" – a sentiment I heard again and again during my two trips to Europe this summer. Those countries already engaged in Iraq (notably Italy and Poland, along with Britain, which is a special case) will probably remain there, at least for the time being, despite growing public discontent: Their governments have no interest in opening a rift with the U.S. and feel, in any case, that they can't afford to contradict their own positions domestically. However, they are unlikely to step up their efforts.

Other European countries seem open to providing modest support, such as offering to relieve some of Iraq's debts (though why exactly Iraq should be given priority over poorer countries on this matter has never been adequately explained by American officials). Limited developmental and reconstruction aid or aid in training future Iraqi police and technocrats are also possibilities. But no country is eager to send soldiers.

A vast engagement of European forces under the NATO flag also looks improbable – at least without a serious American commitment to real partnership in the development of the alliance. Even Kerry's recent suggestion that a United Nations High Commissioner might be appointed to oversee reconstruction and elections wouldn't modify the situation significantly, unless the Commissioner's mandate included command over U.S. troops in Iraq – something that goes well beyond what even Kerry seems willing to concede.

This is not to say that as president Kerry wouldn't enjoy significant leverage with his European peers. Europeans have not forgotten 9/11. They agree that terrorism is a very serious threat; they've suffered from it for decades and understand it better than most. However, Europeans strongly disagree with the whole notion that invading Iraq was a necessary step in fighting terrorism. They believe, as do a growing number of Americans, that the focus on Iraq and on its delusional dictator has been a severe distraction from the very real dangers that have arisen from the debris of the Cold War: network-based catastrophic terrorism, nuclear and biological weapons proliferation, and the failure of global governanc

on Dec 24, 2004
So your view from this article is that France and Germany are all of Europe and Europe is the only place to get troops. Troops need not come from just Europe, as I would prefer they actually come from other Muslim nations that took part in the first gulf war, but took a pass this time around.
With Bush still in power, the possibility of other nations joining the pathetic "coalition" now formed are zero. He offered them no reason nor incentive to go so they didn't. Bullying will not work on everyone.
on Dec 24, 2004
With Bush still in power, the possibility of other nations joining the pathetic "coalition" now formed are zero. He offered them no reason nor incentive to go so they didn't. Bullying will not work on everyone

Realities of the world are WW2, aside from the 3 major allied was somewhat lacking in the troop nearly all of are other allies were goverments in exile with little more than a token force able to assit us....

now for current military power...of those who sent troops to might want to do a bit of research since all have a total military force that is smaller than the combined USMC....that also includes france and forces that are there are kept relatively in the safer regions of Iraq..i.e. the british...which handle the peaceful south rather nicely...while the US gets to enjoy the troubled sunni i mean to belittle the members of the coalition for their commitments...not in any way...but many forget this.....on a side not....if we look at afghanistan and the number of international forces might cry as well...but lets remember that afghan was the "good" war in Europes mind..and nato which is supposed to be helping has only managed bout 9,000 troops from a combined military force of over 2 million (excluding US) and germany and france are there....the fact is the world generally doesnt have the will to deploy their militaries on large scale operations like this anymore but the US does...which allows them an excuse.....
on Dec 24, 2004

Reply #93 By: whoman69 - 12/24/2004 3:43:24 PM
So your view from this article is that France and Germany are all of Europe and Europe is the only place to get troops. Troops need not come from just Europe, as I would prefer they actually come from other Muslim nations that took part in the first gulf war, but took a pass this time around

And just who else could field any large number of troops? And BTW how was Kerry going to convince anyoneelse to help, since he was Mr "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"?
on Dec 25, 2004
which allows them an excuse.....

I mean it allows the world and excuse....
on Dec 25, 2004
So your view from this article is that France and Germany are all of Europe and Europe is the only place to get troops. Troops need not come from just Europe, as I would prefer they actually come from other Muslim nations that took part in the first gulf war, but took a pass this time around.

France and Germanys militarys as does the world in general lack the capability to sustain a moderately size military force in the field far from home..let alone a large one...and if france was to deploy troops..I'd hope they'd align themselves with the insurgents.....which would mean a unilateral surrender of all terrorists, former baath party members, etc. by umm say 30 days...and thats being generous
on Dec 25, 2004
and if france was to deploy troops..I'd hope they'd align themselves with the insurgents.....which would mean a unilateral surrender of all terrorists, former baath party members, etc. by umm say 30 days...and thats being generous

I think they already have, unfortunately not with military leadership, only greed and the cover up of the fact they were selling arms to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions. The reason they did not want the war was to cover their duplicity.
on Dec 25, 2004
The left and right are equally arrogant. But the right has the good sense not to advertise its arrogance.

Huh? Very arrogant take on the issue, coming from a rightie..
on Dec 27, 2004
The real problem with the American left is that it is mostly made up of two groups. Progressives which are the embodiment of the left and what they sould all try to be. Then there are the "librals" who want to drive america into socalism because they want more power and the only way they feel they can get it is by blasting the sucessful in this nation. The right is not nearly as courpt as the left (I don't want to hear any crap about Halaburton!). There is also one major thing wrong with the left, they are anti everything the majority is for. They are a loose rable of special interest groups who can only agree that the republicans are evil. On the other hand, republicans are the true majority in this country. Kerry didn't loose because Bush beat him, he lost to his own stupidity and arrogance. Any senator running for the oval office against an incumbant better be squeaky clean or be running against a real losser. Kerry's record is sameful. The demacrats had the canidate from HELL! He is a snake oil salesman of the worst caliber. He and the rest of his ilk can't choose a side because they don't want to offend anyone. This is politics! Peoples' feelings get hurt. Suck up the 1 or 2 poll point lose and wait for the rebound. I know here in TN many people voted for Bush because they knew where he stood. Kerry's opinion was given to him by Mary Beth. Karl Rove pulled Bush alittle, but instead of giving Bush an opinion, He allowed Bush to have his own. Rove just talyored the message to suit an area. Oh, and by the way, all of these recounts in Ohio are stupid, the electors met two weeks ago and Bush won!
on Dec 27, 2004
I totaly agree with Moderator Dragino.