The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Formerly Once-Ler on February 22, 2014, 11:44:52 am
-
http://spectator.org/articles/57888/lesson-dunkirk
Politics is often like war. Unfortunately, politicians, the media and the voting public seldom have the same degree of realism and discipline with which professional soldiers fight wars. You can indulge your emotions and base your decisions on wishful thinking in politics, in a way that you are not likely to when your own life is on the line in battle.
One of the most dramatic and heartening events of World War II was the miraculous evacuation of British troops trapped on the beaches of France in 1940, at Dunkirk. And its lesson is still relevant today.
The British troops were in France to help the French fight off the invading army from Nazi Germany. But the sudden collapse of the French army left the Brits stranded on the beaches, with the German army closing in on them.
The British navy’s ships in the area were too large to move into the shallow waters close to the beaches, so as to evacuate the troops. Instead, hundreds of British civilians headed for Dunkirk in their fishing boats, recreational craft and practically anything else that would float.
These civilians, who risked their lives going into a war zone, helped nearly a hundred thousand British soldiers get back home across the English Channel.
How does this tie in with politics, especially with politics today?
Many Republicans wanted their party to fight the Obama administration before agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, in hopes of extracting at least some concession — on spending, on the Keystone pipeline or whatever.
Unfortunately, the Republicans had no more chance of winning that fight than the stranded British troops had of winning a battle against Hitler’s army.
Whatever the Republicans threatened, President Obama could call their bluff. They would either have to back down or have a second government shutdown for which they would be blamed. Another shutdown could doom their chances of winning the Senate in the 2014 elections, and perhaps even cost them the House of Representatives.
In a war, you do not fight battles that you are certain to lose, if only because you will need your troops to fight later in battles you can win.
The British troops who escaped from Dunkirk came back to France four years later, as part of the massive invasion forces that stormed the beaches at Normandy, liberated France, and pushed on into Germany for the final defeat of the Nazi regime.
In politics, as in war, you need power to win, and you don’t dissipate your forces fighting battles that you are sure to lose. Symbolism and emotional self-indulgence are just not worth it.
None of this says that the Republicans’ leadership had a great track record prior to the most recent confrontations with the Democrats.
For that matter, the British government had a terrible track record in the years leading up to the desperate situation on the beaches at Dunkirk. But that was no reason to sacrifice troops who would be urgently needed for later battles, where the odds would be different.
There would not be a United States of America today if George Washington had followed the tactics being urged by people like Senator Ted Cruz and his supporters.
The army under General Washington was no match for the British army, in either military experience or firepower. The American army repeatedly had to withdraw, retreat, and even flee to avoid being annihilated.
George Washington did not have to fight futile battles in order to prove his courage. He was already well known for being in the thick of battles, with bullets whistling around his head. But he had to wait for situations where he had the enemy at a disadvantage, and then strike.
When Washington made his celebrated crossing of the Delaware, he was headed for a dramatic victory, using soldiers he had saved for just such a moment. Wars are about winning, not futile symbolic gestures that leave you worse off. Politics must be the same, if you are serious about the issues.
-
Whatever the Republicans threatened, President Obama could call their bluff. They would either have to back down or have a second government shutdown for which they would be blamed.
So, a Marxist president can do whatever he wants? And, nothing in the Constitution gives the minority, these so-called Cruz Republicans, a way of fighting back? Capitulate? That's Sowell's Solution?
He's wrong. We use this and every step of our resistance as a teachable moment for the electorate to learn the difference between fascism and freedom. We don't "win to fight" we "fight to win," to repeat something Mark Levin said last night. We draw clear bold lines that highlight our difference with the socialists in Congress and the Marxist in the White House. That's how we win converts.
-
So ... in the hope of winning a majority in Congress, Republicans should surrender, hide and accommodate.
What a terrific way to motivate an electorate. :whistle:
-
So ... in the hope of winning a majority in Congress, Republicans should surrender, hide and accommodate.
What a terrific way to motivate an electorate. :whistle:
It's better than pushing through with a strategy that 75% of America thinks is wrong.
Eric Hoffer — 'Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.'
-
Sowell is investing quite a bit of his personal political capital to trash a junior senator. Cruz's mission may have been quixotic over the short term, but it reinvigorated disheartened conservatives and brought them back into the game. That may well be why the GOPe holds him in such disdain.
Much as I respect Sowell, I must say that I recognize that Ted Cruz is ours and he is trying to make a difference. He holds no position of leadership in the congress. Whatever the GOP did that is considered foolish or a failure had to have the imprimatur of the leadership or it would not have been done.
-
It's better than pushing through with a strategy that 75% of America thinks is wrong
If 75% of America thinks conservatism is wrong ... well, we may as well stop now. We're doomed.
I happen to disagree with your 75% "statistic". We've not had an articulate, courageous conservative with the ability to connect with the America citizen since Reagan. That is until now with Cruz.
I find it interesting that Republican entrenched political operatives feel the same threat to their political model from Cruz as they did with Reagan. Interesting, indeed. :smokin:
-
If 75% of America thinks conservatism is wrong ... well, we may as well stop now. We're doomed.
I happen to disagree with your 75% "statistic". We've not had an articulate, courageous conservative with the ability to connect with the America citizen since Reagan. That is until now with Cruz.
I thought that Mitt Romney did a terrific job articulating The Message to the masses. Boy, was I wrong. :thud:
-
I thought that Mitt Romney did a terrific job articulating The Message to the masses. Boy, was I wrong. :thud:
Lips, I don't think 2012 had much to do with ideology, to tell you the truth. Besides all the shennanigans in some key places like Philadelphia, the election fundamentally turned on the fact that the kind-hearted people did not want to deny a second term to the first black president. They wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt while at the same time neutering whatever severe damage he might do by re-electing a GOP congress. I honestly don't think the election was any more complicated than that. We conservatives too often read ideology into things when the average folks don't abide by political philosophy at all. They just try to do what they think is "right" based on their emotions.
-
If 75% of America thinks conservatism is wrong ... well, we may as well stop now. We're doomed.
I happen to disagree with your 75% "statistic". We've not had an articulate, courageous conservative with the ability to connect with the America citizen since Reagan. That is until now with Cruz.
Let us not be coy here. 75% of America rejected the Oct 1st shutdown. Cruz's fight for the sake of fighting strategy is stupid. and I'm not the only one who noticed.
I find it interesting that Republican entrenched political operatives feel the same threat to their political model from Cruz as they did with Reagan. Interesting, indeed. :smokin:
I find it interesting you believe that because you read on a conservative forum. Can you show me some proof of this assertion? What many conservatives are finally saying is they agree with Ted Cruz's goals, but the guy doesn't have a clue how to get there. Is that what they said about Reagan? I don't know. Show me what the entrenched political operatives said or did that is similar. Did they say Reagan is self serving or in it to make a fast buck? Did they say Reagan is willing to give the GOP a black eye to advance his agenda? explain please.
-
I gave you one. George Will editorial, Washington Post, November 12, 1974, "Ronald Reagan, the GOP and '76."
And his was by no means the only attack on Ronald Reagan by establishment Republicans for challenging the moderate-to-liberal sitting Pres. Gerald Ford.
Yes, there are hundreds of examples from 1976 and 1980. Reagan threatened the status quo, just as Cruz is threatening the status quote today.
-
You believe Cruz is giving the GOP a black eye to advance his agenda?....and you get this information from the liberal press that is their job to destroy the GOP and advance liberal causes?.....the few *conservative* reporters trashing Cruz are nothing more than the GOPe's mouth pieces and should go the same way as the dinosaurs....
-
Good article.....
-
If 75% of America thinks conservatism is wrong ... well, we may as well stop now. We're doomed.
I happen to disagree with your 75% "statistic". We've not had an articulate, courageous conservative with the ability to connect with the America citizen since Reagan. That is until now with Cruz.
I find it interesting that Republican entrenched political operatives feel the same threat to their political model from Cruz as they did with Reagan. Interesting, indeed. :smokin:
Ronald Reagan compromised, retreated, and came back to fight another day. You better check your stats: Cruz connects with a narrow sliver of the GOP, maybe 22%. The rest of America thinks he's a blustering fool.
Reagan worked with Democrats; that's not Cruz's model.
Comparing Cruz to Reagan is the equivalent of comparing Howdy Doody to Winston Churchill.
-
You believe Cruz is giving the GOP a black eye to advance his agenda?....and you get this information from the liberal press that is their job to destroy the GOP and advance liberal causes?.....the few *conservative* reporters trashing Cruz are nothing more than the GOPe's mouth pieces and should go the same way as the dinosaurs....
Of course Cruz is giving the GOP a black eye in order to advance his own prospects. He's said he DOES NOT CARE that "the elites" don't agree with him.
The Republicans in COngress had to get the budget and debt ceiling off the table for the next year to keep Cruz from coming back every three or four months and trying to screw up their election prospects.
The numbers are not on the side of Ted Cruz or TPers. They never will be as long as Cruz's tactics are lauded by his followers.
-
Levin's take (audio):
Mark Levin: A look back at the attacks on Reagan, how they are similar to attacks on conservatives today
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-a-look-back-at-the-attacks-on-reagan-how-they-are-similar-to-attacks-on-conservatives-today/
-
I'm so glad we have nothing else to talk about than intra-GOP Cruz-bashing!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_03axKms7vhc/SA_H6XxjOtI/AAAAAAAAABU/leRbFpg5YKc/s400/Going+Nowhere+Faster.jpg)
-
I was hoping someone would post that. Thank you, Lando.
It's all there. Just listen.
-
I'm so glad we have nothing else to talk about than intra-GOP Cruz-bashing!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_03axKms7vhc/SA_H6XxjOtI/AAAAAAAAABU/leRbFpg5YKc/s400/Going+Nowhere+Faster.jpg)
The good news is there are no more opportunities over the next year for Cruz to bring the GOP to near ruin by pulling a stunt.
-
Lips, I don't think 2012 had much to do with ideology, to tell you the truth. Besides all the shennanigans in some key places like Philadelphia, the election fundamentally turned on the fact that the kind-hearted people did not want to deny a second term to the first black president. They wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt while at the same time neutering whatever severe damage he might do by re-electing a GOP congress. I honestly don't think the election was any more complicated than that. We conservatives too often read ideology into things when the average folks don't abide by political philosophy at all. They just try to do what they think is "right" based on their emotions.
I hope you're right. Had dinner with some friends on Wed, and what you are saying started to dawn on me then. One gal there (a math teacher at a junior college around here) voted for Obama twice. She said to me "I'm not political at all." It was almost like she was speaking an unfamiliar language to me-I couldn't wrap my mind around it. But then I began to arrive at just what you are saying. Or maybe "accepting" it would be a better word... I dunno.
-
"I'm not political at all."
I don't know much about birthin' no babies but hand me those forceps.
-
I hope you're right. Had dinner with some friends on Wed, and what you are saying started to dawn on me then. One gal there (a math teacher at a junior college around here) voted for Obama twice. She said to me "I'm not political at all." It was almost like she was speaking an unfamiliar language to me-I couldn't wrap my mind around it. But then I began to arrive at just what you are saying. Or maybe "accepting" it would be a better word... I dunno.
Yeah, there's a lot of voter remorse out there. That's why the GOPe types are worried about making waves. It might distract the voters from their own dissonance. These establishment types are probably right, but to me if it just means the party gets a victory without any fundamental shift in the way it conducts its business, then we will not have won anything.
-
It's simple to compare Reagan with Cruz...in a sense that both had/have the "establishment" trying to discredit them.
The problem in drawing it out is that today's Democrat leadership are Marxists. Tip O'Neill attended 'Happy Hours' with Reagan after the typical workday finished.
The Establishment is like the guy who thinks he's being effective by refusing to rewind his rental DVDs.
The crowds Cruz will attract in the coming months will constitute more than 22% of the voters.
Say a prayer for his safety......if anything.
-
Let us not be coy here.
Right back at 'ya.
-
Many Republicans wanted their party to fight the Obama administration before agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, in hopes of extracting at least some concession — on spending, on the Keystone pipeline or whatever.
Not really. Many (myself included) wanted them to not "raise" it at all. (And can we call a spade, a spade? What they've done is SUSPENDED it, not raised it. They've done this the last couple of times as well. Personally I never thought this nation would devolve to the point that we pass legislation that pretends that things like a Debt Ceiling simply don't exist. But that may just be me....)
And before we stoop to the level of entertaining the utter BS about "default" that is spread around by the media and political establishment (that would be both "parties" for those that seem to have a difficult time facing reality), the FACT of the matter is that this behemoth sucks out enough dollars on a monthly and annual basis to more than adequately service the debt. At this point the administration would have to explicitly direct the Treasury to default for other reasons, certainly not a lack of incoming revenue. So do we need to accept the fact that we are at the point of being complete hostages to what this monster may do? Oh, if we don't cooperate and authorize taking on more debt onto the pile that is already far too high to ever pay down, they might default on some obligations?? If we've reached that point (and apparently we have), it is all over but for the singing...
And maybe it is high time to start to insist that we deal in FACTS rather than that so so scary "perception" that so many are concerned with. Dealing with, and trying to manage perceptions (while ignoring facts!), has contributed a great deal to why we have arrived at the point we have. And why are any of us supposed to believe that any of these mighty providers of "perception" are worth a damn to begin with?? Polling? Seriously? Everybody here knows damn well you can get any result that you want when you poll, so why even entertain these results as anything more than they are, tools of spin.
But let me take it a step further..... let's pretend that the polls are accurate? Does that imply that principles (which at this point are about the survival of the Republic (and no less)) should be set aside because of "popular opinion?" Let the beast float right over the edge, because people won't "like us" if we try to stop it?? Really?
Would it be too much to ask to have one of our supposed "leaders" get up in front of the press and dispel the BS about "default" that comes up every time we arrive at this point? Too much for them to have a couple of simple charts that show the FACTS about the incoming tax revenue and the current debt obligations? Maybe make a statement as to the fact that while we are able to service it now, we certainly won't be able to in the not too distant future, ESPECIALLY IF WE KEEP ADDING MORE TO THE MOUNTAIN?? Is this really too much to expect? I guess that it is, sadly.
-
Levin's take (audio):
Mark Levin: A look back at the attacks on Reagan, how they are similar to attacks on conservatives today
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-a-look-back-at-the-attacks-on-reagan-how-they-are-similar-to-attacks-on-conservatives-today/
Thank you for posting this video.
-
I gave you one. George Will editorial, Washington Post, November 12, 1974, "Ronald Reagan, the GOP and '76."
No you didn't you told me to buy an article from the WaPo. What did Will say?
And his was by no means the only attack on Ronald Reagan by establishment Republicans for challenging the moderate-to-liberal sitting Pres. Gerald Ford.
Yes, there are hundreds of examples from 1976 and 1980. Reagan threatened the status quo, just as Cruz is threatening the status quote today.
Great give me 2 examples.
-
You believe Cruz is giving the GOP a black eye to advance his agenda?....and you get this information from the liberal press that is their job to destroy the GOP and advance liberal causes?
No I got my information from the WSJ, Sowell, Will, Coulter, Charen and others.
-
So, a Marxist president can do whatever he wants? And, nothing in the Constitution gives the minority, these so-called Cruz Republicans, a way of fighting back? Capitulate? That's Sowell's Solution?
He's wrong. We use this and every step of our resistance as a teachable moment for the electorate to learn the difference between fascism and freedom. We don't "win to fight" we "fight to win," to repeat something Mark Levin said last night. We draw clear bold lines that highlight our difference with the socialists in Congress and the Marxist in the White House. That's how we win converts.
Thank you AC - this is it in a nutshell! "We don't "win to fight" we "fight to win," to repeat something Mark Levin said last night." It bears repeating, for this is our battle cry!
FREEDOM!
(http://rockytop97.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/braveheart.jpg?w=450&h=80)
-
Levin's take (audio):
Mark Levin: A look back at the attacks on Reagan, how they are similar to attacks on conservatives today
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-a-look-back-at-the-attacks-on-reagan-how-they-are-similar-to-attacks-on-conservatives-today/
Thanx for posting that.
It is clear some of the GOPe complaints about Reagan in 1976 are similar to the GOPe complaints against Cruz today. Other criticisms of Reagan, that he was the wrong man at the wrong time, could be true. Proof of that is he couldn't win the 76 primaries.
Some of the critisism is clearly different like George Will pointing out Reagan was 63 in 1976 and not as physically attractive as he used to be, which I think is as fair a comment as conservatives pointing out McCain's age. Will continues to point out Reagan had not demonstrated national appeal.
He then goes on to paint Reagan supporters as "kamakaze conservatives" who long for the electoral disaster that was Goldwater 64. Now that sounds like today's complaints about Cruz. Criticism that Reagan was far out of the centrist stream is also similar to today's GOPe criticism. As are claims that Reagan was hurting the part.
So I will concede that there are some interesting similarities to GOPe attacks on Cruz and GOPe attacks on Reagan in 76.
Thanx for providing evidence.
-
By all means, let's make an icon of a talk show host who calls anyone who disagrees with him a "jerk" and cuts that person off.
Mark Levin is approaching Michael Savage status as the face of an unhinged, angry conservatism.
Nobody buys anything from an angry person.
-
By all means, let's make an icon of a talk show host who calls anyone who disagrees with him a "jerk" and cuts that person off.
Mark Levin is approaching Michael Savage status as the face of an unhinged, angry conservatism.
Nobody buys anything from an angry person.
If what is going on in Washington right now doesn't make a person angry - then they are dead inside.
-
Not really. Many (myself included) wanted them to not "raise" it at all. (And can we call a spade, a spade? What they've done is SUSPENDED it, not raised it. They've done this the last couple of times as well. Personally I never thought this nation would devolve to the point that we pass legislation that pretends that things like a Debt Ceiling simply don't exist. But that may just be me....)
And before we stoop to the level of entertaining the utter BS about "default" that is spread around by the media and political establishment (that would be both "parties" for those that seem to have a difficult time facing reality), the FACT of the matter is that this behemoth sucks out enough dollars on a monthly and annual basis to more than adequately service the debt. At this point the administration would have to explicitly direct the Treasury to default for other reasons, certainly not a lack of incoming revenue. So do we need to accept the fact that we are at the point of being complete hostages to what this monster may do? Oh, if we don't cooperate and authorize taking on more debt onto the pile that is already far too high to ever pay down, they might default on some obligations?? If we've reached that point (and apparently we have), it is all over but for the singing...
And maybe it is high time to start to insist that we deal in FACTS rather than that so so scary "perception" that so many are concerned with. Dealing with, and trying to manage perceptions (while ignoring facts!), has contributed a great deal to why we have arrived at the point we have. And why are any of us supposed to believe that any of these mighty providers of "perception" are worth a damn to begin with?? Polling? Seriously? Everybody here knows damn well you can get any result that you want when you poll, so why even entertain these results as anything more than they are, tools of spin.
But let me take it a step further..... let's pretend that the polls are accurate? Does that imply that principles (which at this point are about the survival of the Republic (and no less)) should be set aside because of "popular opinion?" Let the beast float right over the edge, because people won't "like us" if we try to stop it?? Really?
Would it be too much to ask to have one of our supposed "leaders" get up in front of the press and dispel the BS about "default" that comes up every time we arrive at this point? Too much for them to have a couple of simple charts that show the FACTS about the incoming tax revenue and the current debt obligations? Maybe make a statement as to the fact that while we are able to service it now, we certainly won't be able to in the not too distant future, ESPECIALLY IF WE KEEP ADDING MORE TO THE MOUNTAIN?? Is this really too much to expect? I guess that it is, sadly.
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
-
If what is going on in Washington right now doesn't make a person angry - then they are dead inside.
Most Americans are living their lives, sending their kids to school, going to their jobs, enjoying their weekends. Most of these people are not angry and they are far from "dead inside."
If you're angry, you might ask yourself why. People get angry when things don't go the way they want them to go.
Why must things always go the way I want them to? Anyway, they won't, and getting angry only harms me; it never harms the object of my anger.
It is such a waste of energy to be angry.
-
Most Americans are living their lives, sending their kids to school, going to their jobs, enjoying their weekends. Most of these people are not angry and they are far from "dead inside."
If you're angry, you might ask yourself why. People get angry when things don't go the way they want them to go.
Why must things always go the way I want them to? Anyway, they won't, and getting angry only harms me; it never harms the object of my anger.
It is such a waste of energy to be angry.
Evidently, your kids aren't going to a public school. Parents all over are getting angry with our education system. Not enough are going to jobs because they don't exist or are part time. Many don't enjoy weekends because they are working a 2nd job.
Who's angry because things don't go their way? I'm angry because we have a Constitution that is being ignored and considered "out-dated". That is what makes me mad. It's not about me, but my children, grandchildren and your children and grandchildren.
I would rather 'waste' my energy and time trying to make things better, than not doing anything at all. Germany did that.
-
Getting angry only harms me; it never harms the object of my anger.
Spoken like a true obsessive compulsive who spends countless hours every day trolling and agitating for the express purpose of provoking anger in others, because he can't seem to deal with his own psychological issues. You presume to lecture others on anger? Heal thyself.
-
Most Americans are living their lives, sending their kids to school, going to their jobs, enjoying their weekends. Most of these people are not angry and they are far from "dead inside."
If you're angry, you might ask yourself why. People get angry when things don't go the way they want them to go.
Why must things always go the way I want them to? Anyway, they won't, and getting angry only harms me; it never harms the object of my anger.
It is such a waste of energy to be angry.
ROFL! You're the one who's been obsessively running back and forth from thread to thread, lifting up anyone who supports the GOPe, and ripping anyone who supports Ted Cruz.
And you lecture *US* about anger? :silly:
-
Spoken like a true obsessive compulsive who spends countless hours every day trolling and agitating for the express purpose of provoking anger in others, because he can't seem to deal with his own psychological issues. You presume to lecture others on anger? Heal thyself.
Angry much?
-
ROFL! You're the one who's been obsessively running back and forth from thread to thread, lifting up anyone who supports the GOPe, and ripping anyone who supports Ted Cruz.
And you lecture *US* about anger? :silly:
I'm not lecturing anybody. If it doesn't fit, just ignore it.
-
Permit me to summarize: Sink and a handful of other posters here don't like Ted Cruz. The majority of posters here, however, think Sen. Cruz is doing the right thing.
So why do we keep rehashing and regurgitating the same stuff over and over? We get it, already.
-
Permit me to summarize: Sink and a handful of other posters here don't like Ted Cruz. The majority of posters here, however, think Sen. Cruz is doing the right thing.
So why do we keep rehashing and regurgitating the same stuff over and over? We get it, already.
Exactly. I've only posted one Ted Cruz article in the last few days. ALL THE OTHERS were posted by other posters, some who really back Cruz.
-
Exactly. I've only posted one Ted Cruz article in the last few days. ALL THE OTHERS were posted by other posters, some who really back Cruz.
Then give it a rest. Please.
-
Sink... you know I support you. Always have. Maybe take a breather. Get some fresh air with the dogs. Really.
-
Angry much?
I bet I'm not the only one here who thinks his observation is spot on. Even your fans are suggesting you get some fresh air. Why don't you?
-
God, Grant Me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I Can,
and Wisdom to know the difference........ by Reinhold Niebuhr
A widely used prayer, reflecting an attitude and philosophy of life.
To question the effectiveness of an individual's actions is NOT hatred of the individual.
To settle for being ANGRY when one doesn't get their way is not likely to be effective. (It is a common tactic used by small children)
Your political opponents would like nothing better than for you to be really angry....so angry you can't see straight.
-
If what is going on in Washington right now doesn't make a person angry - then they are dead inside.
Agree wholeheartedly!! And those that think things are going to be "fixed" by playing the "game" are as big a part of the problem as those causing the destruction at this point. One of the other main problems is that we have a populace that is so dumbed down and distracted at the present that the number of people that have any clue as to what is going on in DC is embarrassingly small.
-
If what is going on in Washington right now doesn't make a person angry - then they are dead inside.
They are either liberals or some of the GOPe who are content with the status quo.
-
Sink... you know I support you. Always have. Maybe take a breather. Get some fresh air with the dogs. Really.
I see sink is in a forced timeout. That is not what I wanted.
-
I see sink is in a forced timeout. That is not what I wanted.
Getting really fed up with all the bullshit around here........ :whistle:
-
I wonder why Sowell is suddenly on a campaign against Cruz?
-
I wonder why Sowell is suddenly on a campaign against Cruz?
Betcha if I had the last ten (10) years of all your internet posts....facebook posts...and emails...I could get you to dance too!
-
Sowell stumbled into something he probably didn't plan to with his analogy. While on the surface, Dunkirk was a 'battle they coldn't win' and a loss, it was actually a very important strategic battle.
The battle of Dunkirk happened after the battle for France had already lost, however, the French uniting to help evacuate the allied soldiers actually created the roots of a major underground resistance in France. At the time, the allies didn't view Dunkirk as a loss but as a victory as those 300K troops were successfully rescued.
Oh, and when all those soldiers were evacuated, they left behind a lot of equipment that was used later by the French resistance.
There is an old book Sowell should read: "The Importance of Dunkirk Consider'd: In Defence of the Guardian of August the 7th" by Sir Richard Steele.
So in this case, Cruz should accept the comparison, because, while the uninformed may look at what he is doing as a 'battle he cannot win', the reality is he is creating the roots of resistance for a larger war.
-
Getting really fed up with all the bullshit around here........ :whistle:
Agreed.
-
Sowell stumbled into something he probably didn't plan to with his analogy. While on the surface, Dunkirk was a 'battle they coldn't win' and a loss, it was actually a very important strategic battle.
The battle of Dunkirk happened after the battle for France had already lost, however, the French uniting to help evacuate the allied soldiers actually created the roots of a major underground resistance in France. At the time, the allies didn't view Dunkirk as a loss but as a victory as those 300K troops were successfully rescued.
Oh, and when all those soldiers were evacuated, they left behind a lot of equipment that was used later by the French resistance.
There is an old book Sowell should read: "The Importance of Dunkirk Consider'd: In Defence of the Guardian of August the 7th" by Sir Richard Steele.
So in this case, Cruz should accept the comparison, because, while the uninformed may look at what he is doing as a 'battle he cannot win', the reality is he is creating the roots of resistance for a larger war.
goopo
-
Getting really fed up with all the bullshit around here........ :whistle:
So am I! But I somehow doubt that the BS I'm fed up with is the same BS you are fed up with.
savme
-
I see sink is in a forced timeout. That is not what I wanted.
He is permanently in time out with me.
Broken records get extremely tiresome eventually.
-
He is permanently in time out with me.
Broken records get extremely tiresome eventually.
Bigun....Bigun....Bigun......
The other day, I happened to post on a thread in which everybody was fully engaged in debating Cruz (what else is new?)
I quoted Sinkspur in my rant...but my reply was not directed at him personally.
Evidently not everybody caught that, because I was immediately quoted and cheered....in fact you called it a HOME RUN shot.
Coincidentally, all the kudos was from posters/mods that have a visceral dislike of Sinkspur.
Anyway, my point is that I disagree with Sinkspur regarding Ted Cruz...and IIRC, illegal immigration back during the Bush years.
We're still "friends" and fellow Republicans trying to beat back the Left.
All I can do is ask you to reevaluate or take the time to see it from a different perspective.
Thanks. :beer:
-
Yep. Despite any disagreements I might have with sinky, I like his hard-edged, concise responses. A definite value added poster.
-
Bigun....Bigun....Bigun......
The other day, I happened to post on a thread in which everybody was fully engaged in debating Cruz (what else is new?)
I quoted Sinkspur in my rant...but my reply was not directed at him personally.
Evidently not everybody caught that, because I was immediately quoted and cheered....in fact you called it a HOME RUN shot.
Coincidentally, all the kudos was from posters/mods that have a visceral dislike of Sinkspur.
Anyway, my point is that I disagree with Sinkspur regarding Ted Cruz...and IIRC, illegal immigration back during the Bush years.
We're still "friends" and fellow Republicans trying to beat back the Left.
All I can do is ask you to reevaluate or take the time to see it from a different perspective.
Thanks. :beer:
I agree DCP. As I have said, sink is acerbic and he gives no quarter in his arguments. But guess what? Others here are just as opinionated as well. Forums are made interesting because members bring their knowledge, life's experiences and opinions to the forum. Even to those who hold opposite opinions to sink must appreciate his knowledge of the intricacies of Congressional proceedings and developments. If he held a more mainstream opinion, at times, he'd be heralded as a scholar by the very people who criticize.
Sink is one of a couple members here who can piss me off like no other... I won't say who the other is (Luis, I love you brother!). But you know what? I stop and read every post of theirs I come across. Every. Single. One. Why? For me they bring value and substance and make me assess my own groundings and beliefs. THAT has value.
Kudos to myst also. What a thankless job she must have at times!
-
Sowell stumbled into something he probably didn't plan to with his analogy. While on the surface, Dunkirk was a 'battle they coldn't win' and a loss, it was actually a very important strategic battle.
The battle of Dunkirk happened after the battle for France had already lost, however, the French uniting to help evacuate the allied soldiers actually created the roots of a major underground resistance in France. At the time, the allies didn't view Dunkirk as a loss but as a victory as those 300K troops were successfully rescued.
Oh, and when all those soldiers were evacuated, they left behind a lot of equipment that was used later by the French resistance.
There is an old book Sowell should read: "The Importance of Dunkirk Consider'd: In Defence of the Guardian of August the 7th" by Sir Richard Steele.
So in this case, Cruz should accept the comparison, because, while the uninformed may look at what he is doing as a 'battle he cannot win', the reality is he is creating the roots of resistance for a larger war.
goopo
-
I agree DCP. As I have said, sink is acerbic and he gives no quarter in his arguments. But guess what? Others here are just as opinionated as well. Forums are made interesting because members bring their knowledge, life's experiences and opinions to the forum. Even to those who hold opposite opinions to sink must appreciate his knowledge of the intricacies of Congressional proceedings and developments. If he held a more mainstream opinion, at times, he'd be heralded as a scholar by the very people who criticize.
Sink is one of a couple members here who can piss me off like no other... I won't say who the other is (Luis, I love you brother!). But you know what? I stop and read every post of theirs I come across. Every. Single. One. Why? For me they bring value and substance and make me assess my own groundings and beliefs. THAT has value.
Kudos to myst also. What a thankless job she must have at times!
Kudos to you, friend! :beer:
Every thread Sink hits...brings a conversation. Which is required to make a "thread".
I'm confident all will work out fine. Feel it in my bones!!
-
Just for S & Gs, Ted Cruz is the only senator that I see that most represents my values.
Others talk it but he's the only one that does it.
Having said that I will repeate that the best way to overcome the RINO/GTOP-e influence is to outnumber them. And the best way to outnumber them, IMHO, is to replace a dim with a TP.
You're NOT going to beat them by fighting with them. If there's one thing we can learn from the dims it's the strategy of incrementalism.
I disagree with Dr. Sowell in his analysis of Mr. Cruz.
-
My goodness, this IS getting a little weird. :whistle:
(http://pad2.whstatic.com/images/thumb/a/af/Start-a-Bromance-Intro.jpg/670px-Start-a-Bromance-Intro.jpg)
-
My goodness, this IS getting a little weird. :whistle:
(http://pad2.whstatic.com/images/thumb/a/af/Start-a-Bromance-Intro.jpg/670px-Start-a-Bromance-Intro.jpg)
LOL!! It is a whole lot better than the * bickering. :beer:
Edit: *Senseless*
-
Not really. The collective tongue bath going on here is a tad bizarre. You yourself told the guy yesterday to get off the board and go out and get some fresh air.
So 2-3 days of forced fresh air is gonna kill him? I think it will kill you guys before it does him. :silly:
-
Not really. The collective tongue bath going on here is a tad bizarre. You yourself told the guy yesterday to get off the board and go out and get some fresh air.
So 2-3 days of forced fresh air is gonna kill him? I think it will kill you guys before it does him. :silly:
I'm glad you have it all figured out Lip. Like most things.
-
I'm glad you have it all figured out Lip. Like most things.
:thumbsup:
-
George Washington did not have to fight futile battles in order to prove his courage. He was already well known for being in the thick of battles, with bullets whistling around his head. But he had to wait for situations where he had the enemy at a disadvantage, and then strike.
When Washington made his celebrated crossing of the Delaware, he was headed for a dramatic victory, using soldiers he had saved for just such a moment. Wars are about winning, not futile symbolic gestures that leave you worse off. Politics must be the same, if you are serious about the issues.
I'd be a little more sanguine if (a) we had a republican leadership that was "well known for being in the thick of battles, with bullets whistling around", and (b) at least some vague impression that the republicans are conserving forces for a "dramatic victory."
I see precious little evidence on either count.
-
Bigun....Bigun....Bigun......
The other day, I happened to post on a thread in which everybody was fully engaged in debating Cruz (what else is new?)
I quoted Sinkspur in my rant...but my reply was not directed at him personally.
Evidently not everybody caught that, because I was immediately quoted and cheered....in fact you called it a HOME RUN shot.
Coincidentally, all the kudos was from posters/mods that have a visceral dislike of Sinkspur.
Anyway, my point is that I disagree with Sinkspur regarding Ted Cruz...and IIRC, illegal immigration back during the Bush years.
We're still "friends" and fellow Republicans trying to beat back the Left.
All I can do is ask you to reevaluate or take the time to see it from a different perspective.
Thanks. :beer:
I currently have no way of knowing (my choice) what Sink has said previous to anything you might post and I'm afraid it's going to have to stay that way until he looses this one note band syndrome he currently suffers from.
:beer:
-
Dissent at this point is not only futile, but risks suspension as well. The party line has been decided.
I think Sink got a bum deal.
-
Dissent at this point is not only futile, but risks suspension as well. The party line has been decided.
I think Sink got a bum deal.
Now you're being unfair; apparently tit does go for tat.
-
I'd be a little more sanguine if (a) we had a republican leadership that was "well known for being in the thick of battles, with bullets whistling around", and (b) at least some vague impression that the republicans are conserving forces for a "dramatic victory."
I see precious little evidence on either count.
I understand your point (a) above. On your point (b), I do have, more than a vague, impression that they are conserving forces for a "dramatic victory," but that "victory" is not the same victory that you, I, and many others wish to see happen.
At this point in time I don't think that it is a stretch at all to come to the conclusion (since all of the evidence in front of us points to it) that the victory they want is over the forces of Constitutional, Limited & Constrained Government patriots.
I understand that some will not agree, and that is fine.
-
I understand your point (a) above. On your point (b), I do have, more than a vague, impression that they are conserving forces for a "dramatic victory," but that "victory" is not the same victory that you, I, and many others wish to see happen.
At this point in time I don't think that it is a stretch at all to come to the conclusion (since all of the evidence in front of us points to it) that the victory they want is over the forces of Constitutional, Limited & Constrained Government patriots.
I understand that some will not agree, and that is fine.
I'm not one of those who will disagree! Far from it in fact!
-
Dissent at this point is not only futile, but risks suspension as well. The party line has been decided.
I think Sink got a bum deal.
TS... I will try to make this my last comment on the matter. I make no bones about being a "fan" of sink (as one of our most esteemed members pointed out so adroitly). In a post for all to see, I also suggested that he take a break - directly to him - just prior to or simultaneous his timeout.
But I am going to say this - and I will say it only this one time. What I found so reprehensible at TOS were the not the Zot-fests per se... but rather those individuals who would assemble like hyenas and dance on the freshly dug graves. Disgusting and repulsive and vile. But... as the saying goes... that's just me.
I can not tell you how fortunate we are to have the hosts we have at The Briefing Room. They are so circumspect on these matters. There are some members, however, who can smell blood when it is in the water.
I can count on my two hands those members who, in my view, drive the substance of this forum. Sinkspur gets counted on the first hand.
Take your shots... I am moving on.
Edit: Had a double "the"... as in "the the". Bothered me.
-
Dissent at this point is not only futile, but risks suspension as well. The party line has been decided.
I think Sink got a bum deal.
Sorry you feel that way ts...I try to be fair to everyone here.
-
Sorry you feel that way ts...I try to be fair to everyone here.
Indeed you do myst. Thank you.
-
Sorry you feel that way ts...I try to be fair to everyone here.
I'll grant you tried. But the result nevertheless is to throttle dissent, to silence other valid viewpoints.
One has to ask himself: "...if what he/she says rubs the popular 'me too' clique the wrong way, will they be suspended too, like Sinkspur?"
-
Dissent at this point is not only futile, but risks suspension as well. The party line has been decided.
I think Sink got a bum deal.
"Yes he did......a little bit. .......a little bit!" (said in my best De Niro impression)
-
(http://www.notasmartman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Robert-De-Niro-as-Jimmy-the-Gent.jpg)
-
(http://www.notasmartman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Robert-De-Niro-as-Jimmy-the-Gent.jpg)
LOL! Exactly, friend! :beer:
-
I'll grant you tried. But the result nevertheless is to throttle dissent, to silence other valid viewpoints.
One has to ask himself: "...if what he/she says rubs the popular 'me too' clique the wrong way, will they be suspended too, like Sinkspur?"
I disagree with your "me too" clique. I have never met anyone on this site, and the only people I have had online conversations with in the past are Rustynail and Gazoo. I knew no one here when I came. I suppose there are others like me. You are confusing agreements with cliques, and are way off. I could say the same about you and sink, but won't because I don't know.
When I was approached to be a mod, I was surprised because I didn't know Myst or Rep4. I was at first ambivalent because I'm not an aggressive person. However, the job doesn't entail being aggressive. The point I'm making is, I wasn't judged because of who I am, but was invited to mod because of my posts, which gave an inkling to my personality. I believe most us of learn as much about each other by how, we post, not necessarily by what we post.
-
I disagree with your "me too" clique. I have never met anyone on this site, and the only people I have had online conversations with in the past are Rustynail and Gazoo. I knew no one here when I came. I suppose there are others like me. You are confusing agreements with cliques, and are way off. I could say the same about you and sink, but won't because I don't know.
When I was approached to be a mod, I was surprised because I didn't know Myst or Rep4. I was at first ambivalent because I'm not an aggressive person. However, the job doesn't entail being aggressive. The point I'm making is, I wasn't judged because of who I am, but was invited to mod because of my posts, which gave an inkling to my personality. I believe most us of learn as much about each other by how, we post, not necessarily by what we post.
What TS means is that when there is ever a problem with Sinkspur, it's always the same .....no more than a half-dozen...regular posters who ultimately 'dog-pack' him.
The word "clique" is apropos.
And IMO a lot of the anger and general feeling toward Sink from some of our well respected males is because of the way that Sink debates.
It's a Sir Lancelot thingy......make a girl blush/cry/embarrassed.....well, you know. :laugh:
We'll get through this. And I still say that someday you're all going to look back at the way you feel right now and think....WTF was I thinking!! :patriot:
-
What TS means is that when there is ever a problem with Sinkspur, it's always the same .....no more than a half-dozen...regular posters who ultimately 'dog-pack' him.
The word "clique" is apropos.
And IMO a lot of the anger and general feeling toward Sink from some of our well respected males is because of the way that Sink debates.
It's a Sir Lancelot thingy......make a girl blush/cry/embarrassed.....well, you know. :laugh:
We'll get through this. And I still say that someday you're all going to look back at the way you feel right now and think....WTF was I thinking!! :patriot:
I respectfully disagree. I could say the same thing about you, TS and Sink in the way you come to each other's defense. Are you a clique? I don't think so, and don't know, so won't accuse. Sometimes, I think the pro Cruz people are being deliberately provoked into giving unnecessary responses. I think we should do better with making are posts the least insulting as we can, to prevent retaliation, and also do the same with replies. It seems so simple, but apparently, it isn't.
-
I disagree with your "me too" clique.
Right now "me too" means Cruz groupie; he can do no wrong for he is the chosen one of the day.
Sinkspur and I questioned the wisdom of trying to replace Senators and Representatives who have ACU ratings above 90.
We questioned putting Cruz on a pedestal if he harms the GOP's election prospects; positions written about by very prominent, conservative commentators.
This forum started as a place for rational Republicans and conservatives, spanning the center-right. It is now far right only.
The problem is there are not enough far right voters to win elections, so the site is taking up a losing position, and suspending dissenters who wish to discuss rational politics, not radical politics.
I come down on the pragmatic path; to hold power, you have to first get it, and that means winning elections.
-
I respectfully disagree. I could say the same thing about you, TS and Sink in the way you come to each other's defense. Are you a clique? I don't think so, and don't know, so won't accuse. Sometimes, I think the pro Cruz people are being deliberately provoked into giving unnecessary responses. I think we should do better with making are posts the least insulting as we can, to prevent retaliation, and also do the same with replies. It seems so simple, but apparently, it isn't.
If I kept reading opinions here in multiple threads...regarding something to do with Maryland politics...and I "knew" in my heart and experience that they were wrong, why wouldn't I go to multiple threads to correct their thinking?
Suddenly somebody shows up and gives them an alternate reality, and all hell breaks loose. It should NOT be that way.
How hard is it to type, "I guess we just have to agree to disagree!"
-
How hard is it to type, "I guess we just have to agree to disagree!"
Yeah. It would be nice if everyone could say that.
-
Bigun....Bigun....Bigun......
The other day, I happened to post on a thread in which everybody was fully engaged in debating Cruz (what else is new?)
I quoted Sinkspur in my rant...but my reply was not directed at him personally.
Evidently not everybody caught that, because I was immediately quoted and cheered....in fact you called it a HOME RUN shot.
Coincidentally, all the kudos was from posters/mods that have a visceral dislike of Sinkspur.
Anyway, my point is that I disagree with Sinkspur regarding Ted Cruz...and IIRC, illegal immigration back during the Bush years.
We're still "friends" and fellow Republicans trying to beat back the Left.
All I can do is ask you to reevaluate or take the time to see it from a different perspective.
Thanks. :beer:
I'm going to reconsider my previous response on this and empty my ignore list. Not going to make any guarantees as to how long it will stay empty but, for now, it is.
-
I'm going to reconsider my previous response on this and empty my ignore list. Not going to make any guarantees as to how long it will stay empty but, for now, it is.
Sir...you won't regret it! :beer:
-
Sir...you won't regret it! :beer:
:beer:
-
Yep. Despite any disagreements I might have with sinky, I like his hard-edged, concise responses. A definite value added poster.
Hey... in the blur I missed this. Yes... exactly what you said ac.
-
Sir...you won't regret it! :beer:
I honestly hope you're right.