Joe Bergeron said:
... rather than disputing the issues Les raises?
The primary reason I didn't do that is just that it's all been said before, and has never done any good in the past. The liberals continue to believe what they want to believe, even when faced with the most blatantly obvious contradictory facts.
But since you asked:
The difference is that when idealogues of the left win out, we all win.
Ideologues of the left only want to vacuum money out of *my* pockets to pay for their latest favorite big-spending boondoggle. That doesn't count as a "win" in my book. I tell you what: give 'em ALL of *your* money and let me keep mine.
Internationally, the US govt cooperates with other nations to foster diplomatic solutions to problems ...
This is happening *now*, despite left-wing attempts at sabotage. Progress with North Korea is intermittent, but moves forward over the long term. Even Iran has gone from kicking out all nuclear inspectors to allowing some inspections to resume. Libya was persuaded to give up its nuclear ambitions.
And the U. S. was highly involved in diplomatic efforts to cool the situation between Russia and Georgia.
If you think diplomacy is the exclusive province of the left, you're more than simply wrong.
... and to protect everyone's environment.
I don't know what you're referring to specifically here. The U. S. government has been actively involved for many years in encouraging other countries to clean up their environmental emissions and has programs in place to encourage U. S. technology companies to export environmental technologies to other nations. This is hardly the exclusive province of the left.
Domestically, there is a safety net that includes guaranteed health care ...
It's going to take a lot more than left-wing hand-waving economics to demonstrate that we can afford such a thing.
... and education for everyone rather than just the privileged few.
I don't know what it's like where *you* live, but in small-town central Wisconsin, where I grew up, *everybody* my age was in school. In fact, there are laws *requiring* parents to school their children. I've no idea what you're talking about here.
when the ideologues of the right prevail, we get international isolation ...
You're living in a different world than I am. The U. S. is involved all over the world: Europe, the Koreas, Georgia, the Middle East, the Far East, South America, Australia and New Zealand, etc., etc. With the exception of those who are actively our enemies, everyone else *wants* U. S. involvement. That doesn't sound like isolation to me.
wars that costs 100,000 lives and counting,
Wars are not the exclusive province of the right. Don't forget that it was a pair of Democratic presidents that got us into Vietnam, a war that cost a lot more lives than that. If you'd like, we can compare and contrast the left's idea of using U. S. troops with the way the right employs them, but I'll skip that for now.
detention camps
That happens in wartime, left or right. FDR was a Democrat, and there were detention camps during World War II. In fact, the folks placed in *them* weren't even enemy combatants. You'd have been better off not mentioning this one.
torture,
If Khalid Sheik Mohammad (spellings differ) had been in *my* hands before 9/11, and I knew he was planning something huge, you'd best have just stayed away then. Cold, embarrassing nudity, mean barking dogs, uncomfortable positions, and loud, lousy rock music wouldn't have
begun to cover it. The rock music would have masked the screams, though, so there's that.
continued subjugation to the oil barons
I know the left hates people who make money, unless they're left-wingers themselves -- especially if they can't tax it at a huge rate. But the oil companies take huge risks in order to assure future supplies of oil; the rewards for the risks that pay off are likewise huge. If you had a billion dollars to invest, where would you put it? In a venture that might double your money, but might result in a 100% loss? Or in a bond fund earning a nice, safe 5% return? What would the probabilities have to be to get you to fund the venture? The oil companies
have to take the first choice.
The oil companies bring oil from halfway around the world, refine it, and sell heating oil to keep folks warm in the winter. You'd gladly pay a lot more for it if you were faced with the possibility of not having any. They also sell gasoline to run our cars -- which you'd also pay a lot more when the alternative is walking to work and back every day.
So don't tell me about "subjugation" when the product is affordable for most folks.
We're sending massive amounts of money overseas to buy oil from other countries, and the liberal left can't even spot the fact that a bunch of that money could STAY HOME if we drilled our *own* oil; they keep making specious excuses for NOT doing so. THAT form of "subjugation" somehow doesn't seem so bad to them.
... and record levels of national debt.
Now *there* you've got me. However, I must say that I fully appreciate the irony that it was the liberal left that railed against and refused to pass (or even consider) a balanced-budget amendment to the constitution, but now wields the national debt as though it were their own personal attack weapon.
I think the conservative right is wrong on a few things, as well. Chief among these are stem cell research and abortion rights. Les, is there
anything you think the left is wrong about?
Both sides are pretty weak on funding scientific research; they both seem to understand that technology is the key to the future, but they don't want to spend much money on it.
In short, the left means to help, ...
I'm sure they do; I don't think the left has evil intentions. They just go about things the wrong way most of the time, and sometimes wildly so.
... the right hopes only to rule and to line its own pockets.
I don't think the right has evil intentions, either. They just have a different point of view than the left does.
But when it comes to "hopes only to rule", the liberal left has put itself in the position of *hoping the U. S. would lose a war* and *continuing to oppose a proven winning strategy* in order to further its ambitions of rule. That's completely disgusting.
If I can paint what I see using VERY broad brush strokes, I think the attitude of the left is that good intentions are all you need to pave the way to success, both foreign and domestic, while the right believes that you need good intentions and a BIG STICK (both militarily and economically).
The left fervently wishes to do away with the big stick, while the right sees that as a recipe for instant disaster and opposes it with equal fervor.
Terry (astrotrf)
