Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

Only if wiping them out was intentional. Otherwise the term is merely inflammatory rhetoric. Conquest is conquest. Europe was far superior in development to the primitive tribes of the Americas they found. They mistreated them, that's pretty well documented, if no doubt exaggerated in our current PC climate, but the idea that they were somehow in better shape before Europe showed up -- Well, as I said, I guess if you prefer that way of life you can favor it if you like though it's awfully short-sighted. Suicidal even, this current rage for hating European civilization and loving the primitive and foreign and trying to make out that they're all equal. And there aren't many Popes I'd consider to be Christian, but I guess that's another subject. Certainly there were true Christians among the flock in any case. The Vatican is not Christian according to Reformation-based Protestants, and it has persecuted as many true Christians as anybody else. As I said, the Bible supports some wars. I don't know enough about that period to know if the wars were just and necessary or not or to what extent they were or weren't since it's probably a mixture. Mainly I'm just tired of the contemporary Leftist assault on Christian history and Western civilization. It's suicidal, it's stupid. Christianity IS entirely different from Islam. The REASONS for the individual situations you bring up are different from situation to situation and entirely different than for Islam's wars and conflicts, which are based on the Koranic directive to conquer the world for Allah, which Mohammed himself began in the Middle East. But the current PC ideology doesn't bother to sort out the differences. "It's a religion isn't it? Well then if people who call themselves Christians are fighting then it's all the same as if Muslims fight, hang the specific motives and causes and beliefs and all that. Religions are all the same. How dare you say anything critical about Islam. You're just a Christian bigot and that's the only reason." Something like that. But I don't have anything to say against Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism when it comes to their history, though I disagree with their beliefs. They aren't trying to force their religion on the rest of the world by murder and mayhem. Islam is something else. I'm not taking any of it personally. I just object to this superficial way of lumping things together that would turn out not to have anything in common with each other if you were to investigate the actual situation and the actual motives involved. And I'm not at all sure the Bible is there in any form at all. You don't know that. Many self-described Christians have very little acquaintance with the Bible. But it's the CAUSES AND MOTIVES that are important. "Killing" doesn't say anything. Some wars are just, some are not. You aren't making necessary distinctions.If only they did read the Bible, but you can't be sure that they did. For most of the history of Europe the population never saw a Bible, and it was even forbidden to them although they were members of the church. And in the church you can't be sure the preaching had anything to do with the Bible either, depending on the period in history. For some time before the Reformation I gather they continued to hear some of the gospel in the liturgy at least, but what was preached was veneration of the saints and paying your way out of purgatory and the power of relics and all that superstitious non-Christian stuff. The Bible might as well not have existed. Thank you. Yes, it doesn't. I have a bad habit of making run-on sentences and leaving out commas among other blunders when in a rush, and I should have tried to straighten it out.Speaking of language, "whilst" sounds archaic in the US but it's fun to hear it /read it.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-18-2005 05:27 AM

The Guardian or the BBC would not be considered Far-left papers by the people of the UK. An example of a far-left paper would the "morning star".The guardian is seen as a liberal paper.

This is general knowledge. If you do a google search, you'll come across many references to it.

That there are always others more to the left or right does not proove no bias on the part of any particular news organization. A recent study in the US determined that something like, oh I don't know, say 80% of American journalists vote Democrat. Yet, hardly any of them would acknowledge bias in their work. It is inevitable. And it is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when it is denied. Fox News admits its conservative bias - while believing it to be soundly based. Most Fox listeners recognize that they share Fox's conservative leanings. The BBC, in contrast, will not admit a left bias, and, apparently, neither will its listeners.The CBC here is the same. For example, it will report on a "right wing" think tank's study, but never mention when other studies it approves of are produced by "left wing" think tanks. Or, a conservative member of parliament says something racist, and they make it lead story news, but bury similar statements from liberals in parliament to the end of the broadcast.

The far left of GB will not consider that they are far left, and will not, therefore, see media of the far left as being such. Instead, they will see it as you say, merely liberal, and, of course, entirely objective and fair-minded. Such is human nature. Similarly, those on the far right will not see themselves as such, nor any media that assumes their positions. And yet, typical conservative media and typical conservative media followers not only acknowledge their bias, but do so proudly - because they are confident in rectitude and proud of their beliefs. I don't see the same on the left, which insists it is absolutely bias free and objective.Here's a blurb on left wing bias in the British press, as demonstrated by reaction to Bush's re-election (http://slate.msn.com/id/2109242/):Brits to America: You're Idiots!
Well, 51 percent of you, anyway.
By June Thomas
Posted Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 5:07 PM PT
Americans who think post-election anti-red-state recrimination is a U.S.-only phenomenon should check out the cover of Thursday's Daily Mirror: Over a picture of President George W. Bush, the paper asked, "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Inside, the left-leaning British tabloid headlined its editorial, "WAR MORE YEARS." In a clear demonstration of the trans-Atlantic culture gap, the paper's description of the president's beliefs”clearly intended to strike Mirror readers as a radical agenda”is simply an
accurate, if crude, précis of his platform: "Mr Bush opposes abortion and gay marriage, doesn't give a stuff about the environment, is against gun control and believes troops should stay in Iraq for as long as it takes."The Mirror wasn't the only British paper with a striking cover. The Guardian's "G2" section was fronted by a page of solid black containing just two small words: "Oh, God." Meanwhile, the Independent ran the headline "Four More Years" along with iconic images from the first Bush term: kneeling prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib, soldiers fighting in Iraq, oil-drilling machinery, sign-wielding religious extremists, and a smirking Dubya. In France, Libération ran a picture of the president under the headline, "L'Empire empire"”"The empire declines."Many of the British commentaries followed a consistent formula: We wish the other guy had won, but Bush scored a convincing mandate this time around, so we have to live with it. As the Guardian put it: "We may not like it. In fact . we don't like it one bit. But if it isn't a mandate, then the word has no meaning. Mr. Bush has won fair . and square. He and his country”and the rest of the world”now have to deal with it." In a fit of double-negativity, the Independent's editorial added: "This does not mean, however, that we do not contemplate the second Bush term with considerable trepidation. Another four years of a president in thrall to the religious right and the neo-conservatives is another four years in which the United States risks sliding back into an earlier age of bigotry and social injustice." Writing in the Times of London, Simon Jenkins' condescending sigh of disappointment typified the genre:Mr Bush's election will give the rest of the world a collective heart attack. It expected a Kerry win. At the very least it expected Americans to somehow rein in a man it sees as nave and dangerously belligerent. . Americans declined to rein him in. They legitimised him. The rest of the world has been roundly snubbed.

So, you finally admit it.

quote:

---

Americans who think post-election anti-red-state recrimination is a U.S.-only phenomenon should check out the cover of Thursday's Daily Mirror: Over a picture of President George W. Bush, the paper asked, "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Inside, the left-leaning British tabloid headlined its editorial, "WAR MORE YEARS." In a clear demonstration of the trans-Atlantic culture gap, the paper's description of the president's beliefs”clearly intended to strike Mirror readers as a radical agenda”is simply an
accurate, if crude, précis of his platform: "Mr Bush opposes abortion and gay marriage, doesn't give a stuff about the environment, is against gun control and believes troops should stay in Iraq for as long as it takes."

---

Which would not be seen as far-left by the british people

quote:

---

The Mirror wasn't the only British paper with a striking cover. The Guardian's "G2" section was fronted by a page of solid black containing just two small words: "Oh, God." Meanwhile, the Independent ran the headline "Four More Years" along with iconic images from the first Bush term: kneeling prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib, soldiers fighting in Iraq, oil-drilling machinery, sign-wielding religious extremists, and a smirking Dubya.

---

Which would not be seen as far-left by the british peopleBoth of those positions would be seen as being left to centre not Far-left. I think it's very difficult for people from North America to grasp how different the political discourse is here.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 18-Jul-2005 09:02 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 18-Jul-2005 09:03 AM

I'm not sure what your point is, butI agree with your comment that neither of those papers' reports would be seen as far left by the left in GB. It might well have been seen as such by the right, however.

I missed this comment of yours:"Both of those positions would be seen as being left to centre not Far-left. I think it's very difficult for people from North America to grasp how different the political discourse is here."You're probably right about that. I have been made aware of that over the past few years, however, and, hence, my comments about the far left bias in much of the British media.

Let me get this straight... according to you a guy that squeaks by with a bare majority, counts as the "world" being "roundly snubbed"? Some perspective please.And I am not sure if anyone outside of Republicans ever called it a mandate, but if Brits did then they were way off. If "mandate" is synonymous with "bare majority" as the result of a vote, then it actually has no meaning.He certainly was elected, and so he has a right to his position. And in that position he then has the mandate of the people to act as the executive. But there is a difference between the "mandate" which comes from being in a position, and a "mandate" as determined by the results of the process which put one into that position.Here's an example, as treasurer one has the mandate to control funds for an organization. However, the treasurer cannot pretend that having been given that role, it is as if everyone or a great majority supported that person for that position and so will receive no resistance to any action pursued as treasurer.Bush has inherited a divided house, with great resistance toward his policies, even from his own party. Indeed he has since been handed at least two "snubs" from his own party (and so the legislature) regarding policies he promised within his campaign. Thus it is clear... he had no mandate.By the way, why is a Canadian so wrapped up in US politics, such that everything discussed revolves around US political issues? Do you have no sense of honor regarding Canada's place in the world?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It appears you agree with me, because i didn't write that comment. Rather, i quoted it to point out the left wing bias of british media.

As for American poltiics...I'd be glad to discuss canadian poltiics with you, but i suspect that you, like most Americans, know very little about them and have even less interest. Regardless, it is obvously true that American politics have infinitely greater impact on the world than do Canadian.

My mistake on the source, but that is a right wing quote. Anyone claiming the world was snubbed and he has a clear mandate is right wing, or just someone incredibly ignorant of our system.Were those editorials, or actual comments by professional journalists?I have no idea about the Guardian, but from what I see on the BBC it is not a biased source of news. Their discussion/debate shows grill all sides equally, and the anchors always seem objective and sober when handling news.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

A recent study in the US determined that something like, oh I don't know, say 80% of American journalists vote Democrat.

---

...and almost all of the editors are conservative.So, who gets to approve which stories get printed in the newspapers, the journalists or the editors?

Christianity may expect man made laws to be consistent with the faith, but the faith's principles reflect those that we assume in a democracy: peace, justice, tolerance, restraint, etc. What they don't inlude is a demand to war against all the world until it is conquered, subjugated and converted to Christianity, then ruled by a Christian king. There is no equivalent in the NT to the War Verses.I don't agree that affirmative action is still needed. It was only needed immediately after the civil rights movement, to redress that Blacks had been LEGALLY precluded from most opportunity. That time passed many years ago. Instead, what transpired was institutionalized injustice. Example: My daughters, due to affirmative action, have a better chance of getting Law and Med school than my sons. Why? They've had every equal opportunity. They even have a mother who is a lawyer (who got in onto Law School deservedly). It's absurd. And now, because women tend to out-qualify men for university entrance, universities are actually beginning reverse affirmative action to get more men in. That is equally absurd. No person, who happens to be a woman should be denied entrance when she has earned her way in, when someone else, who happens to be a man, has proved less worthy. If society and universities are concerned that boys in high school are underperforming, then that should be addressed directly. Everything should be done to determine why, adn then to improve their performance. But affirmative action for university entrance as a means to redress that is nuts. It is grossly unfair to any women who rightfully earned their way in. It is a substitution of objective fairness with subjective nonsense. It puts social engineers in charge of justice. (And, there's a pretty good chance that the huge social engineering experiment of radical feminism is one cause for declining performance of boys in elementary and high school, because the education system became feminized and biased against masculinity.)When i show up at an emergency ward with my very sick or injured child, i don't want to wonder whether the doctor is a doctor because she is a woman of colour, rather than because she proved herself objectively worthy of Med school entrance. Amd if she did earn her way in objectively, she doesn't want to me to wonder about that either.Affirmative action undermines the notion of the individual, and replaces it with subcategories of definable groups according to race, ethnicity, faith and whatever. That is fundamentally undemocratic. It undermines and saps morale, encourages people to identify with their group, rather than as one citizen amongst all others equally within the nation. It tears a nation apart, rather than foment unity of purpose and identity.Multiculturalism is similarly anti-democratic, and seriously flawed. Everyone is an individual within the nation. Everyone must identify more as an American or canadian, than as a Black or Jewish or Hispanic Canadian. When a Jew identifies more with being Jewish than Canadian, he no longer has the moral authority to vote in elections, because his allegiance means he is voting less as a Canadian, than as a Jew. He should move to israel. When an American Hispanic wants more to live as a Mexican than American, then he should return home to mexico. One comes to a country to join in, not to take it over (as Islamists do), or to live as an entity apart (as too many European muslims and American Hispanics do).