Today, AllahPundit explains why….

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That’s only polite. You’re advertising here, we should get an……

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left Republicans.

Has anyone noticed that the left isn’t screaming about Haliburton now that Soros owns a huge chunk of it?

Buzzy on September 17, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Ha! Good one.

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism:

UnAmericanism.
Here’s the poster boy for each:

Appeasement: Neville Chamberlain, history’s best example of peace through weakness.

Pacifism: I doubt they’re talking about passive resistance and more along the lines of being the world’s dormat.

Globalism: Better known as: Who can we deflect blame to when we screw up?

Has anyone noticed that the left isn’t screaming about Haliburton now that Soros owns a huge chunk of it?

I disagree.

In the strict sense of the word, the Democrats are being traitors. They are giving aid and comfort to our enemy by giving him what he cannot achieve by himself on the battlefield — victory.

The fact that their motivation is for political gain only makes it worse, because as far as I am concerned, treason for political advantage is the worst kind of treason possible. Selling out the country for money is bad enough. Betraying the country to obtain political power is much, much worse.

They are what they are, and I intend to continue calling them traitors.

unless there is a full moon out.

We’re not going moon batty trust me.

So **Liebermann’s winning was the rule and the huge number of seats that the democrats won by a puny majority vote. was the exception?

Yes Liebermann’s winning “war hawk” strategy in a very liberal state, ruled the day because people were voting their heart and their conscience.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM

I am very restrained, unless there is a full moon out of course, then all bets are off.

I think that the Republicans lost in some close races because of the Mark Foley “October surprise” combined with the constant drumbeat of “corruption” from the Dumocrats,

Corrrrrect.

They wanted a much harsher war or to install a “glass parking lot” there.

Corrrrrrrrrect again.

Why else did Liebermann, a war hawk – win in a landslide as an independent in a very liberal state – after being thrown off the bus by the Dimmmis?

So Liebermann’s winning was the rule and the huge number of seats that the democrats won was the exception? New math? LOL!!!

I know your are trying to make sense….I’m still waiting.

I will continue to show restraint as I do not want a tounge lashing from dave_lantos for being impolite as I got a scolding even when being polite.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM

I don’t agree with your edit here. I think Gelernter’s original articulation (”It is merely logical.”) is more accurate, and really quite brilliant. I too am furious at the Democrats for their defeatism. Given their incorrect initial assumptions or “axioms”, (ie. “appeasement, pacifism and globalism are always good”), wishing for America’s defeat is indeed “no evil or traitorous urge”, it is simply the logical ramification of the above incorrect axiom. The wording “it is merely logical” strikes me as exactly correct. The Democrats are indeed being entirely logical, given their initial (incorrect) beliefs.

It can be logical and treasonous at the same time. And it is. It is ceratinly logical based on their prepsoterous belief structure. But Benedict Arnold was being logical, too. He was also being patriotic to his country-of-choice, Britain. Being patriotic to an abstract ideal (particularly, as implemented in other parts of the world) over your own country, IS treason. They/you may think it’s noble/rational/whatever; but people are using the T-word for a reason: Because it fits. Don’t like it? Tough s***. Truth hurts sometimes.

Oh, and DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!

at 1:31 AM

I’m never been accused of being oblique when I’m ticked off – and never will. ;)

“You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason—if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his.”

“Then let’s get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm’s due tomorrow.”

Powell sighed wearily. “That’s where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumptions and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them…”

–Isaac Asimov, Reason (1941)

“Cutie” is the nickname for the supervisory robot QT-1. Prior to the above quote, QT-1 establishes a quasi-religion to justify his function and the robots under him chant, “There is no master but the Master and QT-1 is his prophet!” Asimov lampoons religion, specifically Islam.

The libs are following their iron logic without deviation. And they say conservatives are rigid.

I think libs’ flexibility is in their “facts”.

at 1:20 AM

It’s means, “you can write that in stone – it’s so dead on.”

meaning **this:

realizing that this already unpopular philosophy (appeasement) would be even more unpopular just after 9/11. As 9/11 receded in people’s minds over the years, perhaps Soros and other lefty powers that be calculated that they could slowly crank up the volume again.

…is a jewel in debate value.

Now do you understand?

You can write yourself into the history books, buddy.

Huh? I don’t know what that means.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM

-

What you say is true, although I was not thinking about Harry Reid or anybody else in particular.
-
So even though I agree that how one defines America’s purpose can lead to different viewpoints (the application of logic), I don’t think that all viewpoints are equally valid – even if they are completely logical.
-
Here I differentiate between logic (rigid rules of thinking such as if A = B and B=C then A=C) and reason, which includes a reality test (something that does not conform to reality may be logical, but it is not reasonable).

-

In my view America’s purpose in the world (the purpose for which it was founded) is to guarantee and protect the innate human rights of it’s citizens, against all enemies, where ever they are (“foreign or dommestic”). By doing so it serves as an inspiration and beacon of liberty to other nations less blessed.
-
So anything that works against that purpose is destructive to the nation. If Harry and friends want to define some other purpose that contradicts the Founding Principles, they are essentially converting America into something that it was never intended to be.
-
As far as federal elected officials go, they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, so this puts certain contstraints on what they can say or do while in office.

I am very restrained.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM

———-> Here’s a kudo. That’s good. Seriously.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM

I am very restrained.

Outliers are the exception, not the rule.

In this very intense debate of war or not war, Liebermann’s case was not an exception – it mattered too much to the voters……

I know your are trying to make sense….I’m still waiting.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM

What we got here is… failure to communicate.
- Captain, Road Prison 36

You appear to have missed my whole point. Outliers are the exception, not the rule.

As 9/11 receded in people’s minds over the years, perhaps Soros and other lefty powers that be calculated that they could slowly crank up the volume again.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM

You can write yourself into the history books, buddy.