Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry

So then your statement that liberals jeer while conservatives think real thoughts really was not accurate. In reality, today liberals and conservatives are jeering.

It's just that conservatives jeer because of their higher values whereas liberals jeer because they are too confused to do anything else.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I never said that no one believes them. I said that to define those as liberal ideas -- easily dismissed because of the way you phrase them -- and then call somene a liberal, I can only assume you are saying that person holds all or most of those views.

I guess I am confused. You seem to be saying that when you, Larry and others address someone whose views you do not completely know as a "liberal", using a perjorative tone, since you really don't know all of that persons views, you are simply referring to those who write these books at Barnes and Noble?

Or are you in fact trying to link that person with these unnamed authors you, the ones you yourselves have defined as unacceptable because of the way you have explained what they think and believe -- trying to define the person you are talking to in a way that makes it very easy for you to dismiss what he says? In short, having set up a predefined straw man based on ideas you don't like from authors of books and claiming that person is such a man?

I would appreciate it if you would explain this to me. Just what are you attempting to do when you call someone a liberal?

And explain to me why it is important to you to label people? I understand why it is done in partisan politics; it provides a short hand way of obfuscating someone's views for the purpose of getting someone to vote against them (or for them).

But I am at a loss as to why you all feel it necessary to do so in a forum like this. Why do you and Larry (and others) feel it is necessary to label people in a forum such as this? What does labeling people accomplish here -- unless it is also a short hand way of dismissing people's ideas?

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, Larry, you often say that people can't tell when you are joking. But I really do like your sense of humor. This is really funny!

Glad you got a kick out of it.... :rolleyes:

I hear that Saddam is doing a standup routine at the Comedy Club - want me to call and make you a reservation?

Hi, David. Long time no see, probably because I don't get to the piano forum much any more.

I want to know if what follows is the sort of thing you are talking about, or are the people who pushed for this extemists on the conservative side? Is this mainstream conservatism? Is it something I should be worried about? Because frankly, it scares me and makes me think there isn't very much that separates people who think like this from the radical fundamentalists we see in parts of the middle east.

I would put the link to the article here, but the NYTimes requires people to be registered, so I'll post the relevancies. (The whole article is here if you are registered and want to see it, it is short: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Living-Together.html )

To summarize:

Bismarck, N.D.--The state Senate has voted to keep a 113-year old law that makes it a crime for unmarried couples to live together.

A proposal to repeal the law was defeated 26-21. The offense carries a max of 30 days in jail and a $1000 fine.

"It stands as a reminder that there is a right, and there is wrong," said Sen. Jahn Andrist, a Republican, "Just because something can't be enforced, I don't think it necessarily means that we should feel compelled to take a position to take it off the books."

The law refers only to one person living with another of the opposite sex.

It really all began with William F. Buckley. He was the true genius that started it all.

He was the seminal political (and to and extent: sociological, intellectual and religious,) influence in my life.

A long time ago when unions first formed, there was a need to protect worker's rights. Now 1/2 of America (just a guess) is an involuntary subscriber to political ideology. If you go to the AFL-CIO website, it describes the political agenda to which its members adhere; members who pay a voting bloc to insure continued employment. Reporters, actors, steel workers,educators, carpenters, hotel workers and others are members of the huge list of occupations which have their political views dictated. This voting bloc which is aligned with government workers, special interest groups, minorities, news producing organizations is self perpetuating. Tax dollars raised by these groups are used to insure their survival.

On the AFL-CIO website there is a whole drop down menu entitled "Bush Watch". A huge group of people are spoon fed this political gimme pap and think in a certain mindset, and one of the current mindsets is anti-war anti-Bush, pacifist.

When there is something as earth shattering as a war defined by partisan politics, I think it's important (at least to me) to understand WHY people hold certain views especially in discussion.

As do I. In fact I would very much enjoy a separate thread about them. We could post pictures, what we practice, etc. I have thought about starting such a thread, but alas, I fear it wouldn't do well here in the Kaffeezimmer. Still, perhaps I can be persuaded. By the way, the raison d'etre for this post is to follow up on points you did not address. Perhaps you overlooked them, perhaps you didn't want to. In the latter event, I won't keep bringing them up after this.

In re the blanket statements about the French. Many, in fact apparently the majority of French wish the US to do poorly, even lose the war to a regime that tortures children to force their parents to cooperate with them, has engaged in genocide, and has committed acts of terrorism as well as invited and harbored terrorists. In addition, there is no French public outrage against Chirac for going against this action. They would rather see America "learn a lesson" than rid the world of an evil regime that witnesses can't adequately find the words to describe. So please tell me what is disingenuous about making "blanket" statements about the French? It seems to me I am actually portraying them pretty damn accurately. You've also failed to address my point that I think your assertion that we all have the same wants and desires for our lives is wrong, but we'll skip over that.

You made the assertion that we were using evil against evil. I asked you three simple questions: How do you stop evil? Is it evil to oppose evil? Or rather is it honorable? You failed to address the entire topic that you initially raised. I also asked if you suggested that we do nothing. Again, you had no response.
So if you do not believe that terrorism is the reason, then what do YOU think IS the reason? This is a question I have asked repeatedly from several on this forum, and no one, not a single person has answered it, although they all firmly believe that our stated purpose is a lie.

From 2 days ago.

Same here and WFB could hardly be accused of simply "jeering" although he can be quite penetrating.

"I would rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the Boston phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard". William F. Buckley

Good point, Apple. I employ the construction trades for a Fortune 100 company (electricians, millwrights, pipefitters, etc.) and I have become friends with them over long and repeated projects. I typically hear things like they are against many or even most of the viewpoints the Democrats espouse (gun control being among one of the hot topics in Michigan) but they don't want to vote against their union. Many people don't realize that for these people, they "really" work for their unions, not for the contractor who comes and goes from job to job. And actually your union membership pecentage in the US is high, but your point is very valid and accurate.

I belonged to a union many years ago and would much prefer (as things stand now) to bargain for myself, thank you very much. I always did much better on my own than as part of a group!

It's very sad but true that many people allow others to do their thinking for them. The union example you gave is one case, another is the hordes taking directions from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, etc.

The union example you gave is one case, another is the hordes taking directions from the radical left.

Big difference here. Whether you are a local journeyman, or a "traveler" booming, the union hall controls who gets to "drop their brass" on any given job.

And if you don't think there are economic ways(and other less subtle persuasions) to make union members vote the way you want them to, I've got this ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell for a song, and let you hum the tune yourself.

Neither Falwell, nor Robertson, can wield anything approaching that type of power.

I was a union "officer" for the American Federation of Teachers, a member of the collective bargaining unit as well for our university.

I was constantly going to seminars, union procedure classes, conferences, etc.

My summation:

I have never been surrounded by such a huge group of politically correct sheep, following along blindly, avoiding discussions on any subject other than promoting the union for continual growth and political influence (we of course had paid lobbyists at the state level, as well as in Washington).

I held out for 3 years, definitely becoming known as a black sheep, and finally stepped down (and out).

Unions are a wonderful concept. But in education (can't speak for other areas of labor), they became left-wing political organizations far removed from the original intent.

The same social engineers that have become the leadership of the education unions over the past 20 years are also the exact same people involved in government committees designing the "new" curriculum movements in public school education (began with Bush Sr., or back to LBJ, depending on how you look at it).

Oh well, already going way off-topic. . .

Gryphon, sorry, I've been busy. also, sometimes I don't respond to every point, as I just begin typing, then end when I feel I've wasted enough of everyone's time.

Well, as I'm sure you know from the Piano Forum, I keep many international relations. People that I know in both France and Germany have their own unique opinions on this situation, as do we. Just as you can't say that every American hates every Iraqi, so can you not say that France does or does not believe one thing or another. I understand that maybe I'm getting too technical. But maybe it's better to say "most French" or... "from what I've been told, most french believe..."

you mentioned earlier that you thought this was wrong and I saw no need to respond. It's a silly point to discuss, and there's no need to turn it into a fight.

I don't claim to know how to stop evil. But I personally don't believe that war is the best way to do it. It might be necessary now that we are neck deep in it. But I don't think it's the best way to resolve the conflict. And no, I don't know what the best way is... I'm just an un-intelligent piano tuner.
No it is certainly not evil to oppose evil. Clearly you want me to say something that will give you a spring board to dive off on. Obviously as a rational person who is opposing evil, I won't think that the opposition of evil is inherently evil... (duh)

Is it honorable? Certainly, if done in an honorable fashion.
No I am not suggesting that we do nothing. I have already suggested that we are facing the inevitable consequences to choices we have made over the last couple decades. I have already said that had we handled things differently in the past, and with different motives, then possibly this could've all been avoided.

I think Terrorism is part of the reason. It's hard to think that terrorism is the only reason, when there are much more severe cases of terrorism taking place in other parts of the world, and by nations who represent a threat to us here in the U.S. Certainly Saddam doesn't have the capability to do anything to us from Iraq, and we already know there's virtually nothing we can do against terrorist attacks. So there has to be another reason. In fact, there are most likely a host of other reasons that lead to the decision to take this route.

My next sentence I believe stated that I understood the defense part of it. I apologize if I didn't state that clearly, but that was the inspiration for the statement.

If our primary reason is not freedom and liberation, than our military is lying to us. If that's the case, why would I trust everything they say? Operation Iraqi Freedom implies that this conflict is born of a want to free the Iraqis. What then is our primary reason?

I agree... I guess that part of my point would be that there is always another option. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but certainly you can always try to not choose the option in which people lose their lives.

Of course they haven't fled! They watched the TV last night and saw citizens being mowed down by gunfire fleeing Bashrah. Besides that, there's an invading army on three sides of their city.. what do you mean they're not fleeing. First off, I'm sure there's a lot going on there that we don't know about, even with the stunning reportage of such men of integrity as Geraldo Riverra and others. I don't personally know what the Iraqis in Baghdad are being told. I doin't know what lines they've been fed... I don't even know at this point what lines I'VE been fed. But it should be pretty obvious that they're scared... we're invading their country. This is a completely different culture from ours, one based in fundamental Islam. A structure of law which follows strict rules, and a clear line of command. How can we come in as agressors, and expect them to believe that after we win their country fair and square, we're just going to turn around and hand it over to them?

You and I might know that we have absolutely nothing to gain by the occupation of Iraq, and are clearly going to set them up with a wonderful government, but how can we expect them to believe that from the nation occupying them? (ok, some of the last sentence was a bit sarcastic.. I apologize).

I agree with you as well. And I want to be clear, that I am not clearly against this, and haven't said that I don't believe that this fight is against terrorism. Rather I am questioning it. I think of it as my responsibility to question things before I buy them. I'm a Christian, but not because I grew up as one, rather because I questioned my faith, and have had real life experience which have made things clear for me. This is much the same. I'm simply waiting for things to become clear, and frankly, many of the things you have said are helping in that process. Fundamentally, I believe with a lot of what you are saying. I apologize again for the long post though... had a lot to respond to.

KlavierBauer

KlavierBauer,
I understand that maybe I'm getting too technical. But maybe it's better to say "most French" or... "from what I've been told, most french believe..."

An excellent suggestion. It could be used to for the citizens of the USA or any country.

And with the opinion polls that are made everywhere, we could even be more accurate :

"35% of the French think that...."
"76 of the USA (funny there is not a word that designates the citizens of the USA. They prefer to call themselves Americans, like they own the continent. No US bashing intended )
"54 of the Iraki people..." Well we'll have to wait a bit for that kind of statistics.

No, you are correct, or at least semi-correct. Although American is a valid definition of a US citizen, it also has other definitions and you have to be aware of your audience. Whenever I travel to Canada and the Canadian border guards ask me my citizenship, I *always* say "U.S." because sometimes they get pesky about using the term "American" and I don't need to sit in the shack for an hour while they tear apart my car.

"American" is somewhat imprecise if not egocentric but, as you have said, it is much less cumbersome than "United Statesian" (Etats Unisian?). The real tragedy is that the truly native Americans (or, at least, the ones who got here first) came to be identified with a country on an entirely different continent.

Although American is a valid definition of a US citizen,

You have to explain us why.

Something that is generally practiced does not IMO make it valid.

The definition by the Catholic Church of the Jews as "Murderers of Jesus" is not a valid definition either.

Words have a meaning and as far as I last checked, America is the sum of many countries.

This definition is abusive and sooner or later, it will have to be changed to something more specific, less arrogant and less insulting for your neighbours.

JBrryan,

Since Christopher Columbus thought he had reached India, I propose you call yourselve Indians.