Spreading my wisdom for all to enjoy. Where I do little research and pass off my opinion as fact, then close debate by reminding you, "I'm right, you're wrong."
In this New York Times article, they say things about Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, that they would like to say about American conservatives. Klaus is one of us, and appears to be scaring Europe's Left Wing. Good for him, and perhaps for us, too.
Mr Klaus is not like American conservatives at all. The Czechs are Catholic and Catholicism is the State religion but the secular government offers free birth control and abortion on demand. There is no big movement to change that and it is a well supported policy.
Klaus, unlike the educationally and intellectually crippled American Right does not disbelieve that global warming exists. He denies the need to address it. This is a train of thought I myself subscribe to. Czechs could stand a few degrees of additional warmth, it's a cool country and often dreary.
Mr Klaus believes in free enterprise and small government. The two biggest spenders in modern times were Reagan and Bushie. Unlike them, Mr Klaus is an intelligent and well educated man. The American Right is characterized by deranged, snakehandling, glossalalian idiocy. The Bohemians are an enlightened and ambitious race. The most industrious in Europe.
That America sold these fine, proud people and so many others, into slavery at Yalta is a national disgrace on a par with the acceptance by the German people of the Nazi holocaust of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and intellectuals.
I agree with you, Red, that we sold out Eastern Europe. I disagree, as a member of the "Right" with your characterization of it. Maybe I'm wrong and am stupid as well.
I think he, at least, disputes that GW is man made.
Says Klaus: “The theory of global warming and the hypothesis on its causes, which has spread around massively nowadays, may be a bad theory, it may also be a valueless theory, but in any case it is a very dangerous theory"
What Kraus says is not that global warming doesn't exist but that the imminent doomsday scenario espoused by people like Al Gore is a myth. He says that most of the damage is being done to the environment by undeveloped third World nations and that affluent, developed nations are in a better position to conserve and restore the World's resources than those struggling for basic subsistence.
Therefore, the best way to deal with the ecological crisis is to bring prosperity and development to as much of the World as possible, as quickly as possible. It is a pure neocon doctrine, without the unilateral foreign wars of aggression and genocide.
Kraus' thesis may or may not be true but at least it's an argument that a politician needn't be embarrassed to speak to. It might even appeal to an EU population, where societies are run on a secular basis and not by drooling, end of days, mouth breathers and their pedophile, meth head, clergy.
You are too used to the imbecilic ramblings of Bush/Palin and their ilk, to recognize a Rightist political argument that is salable to a target audience with greater than a fourth grade educational level. Instead of embracing the similarities that the Right in Europe and America enjoy, you should examine the differences and perhaps think about incorporating some of those differences into your home grown Rightist schtick. You could be winning elections again in no time.
I don't think you're stupid or even necessarily wrong, just dazed and left numb by the failings of the leadership available to your cause.
You need someone as smart as Newt but not a sexual deviate. Somebody strong like Dick Armey but not tempted by the easy money that power brings. Somebody as facile as Tom DeLay that doesn't foam and shrivel like a banana slut when sprinkled with a little salt.
You don't need to put words in my mouth, and you can think whatever you want about how I am used to the "imbecilic ramblings" of whoever. Having voted for Newt, and being somewhat of a disciple, this election (and 2000 and 2004) made me long for someone who could articulate a real conservative vision.
Whether that sells in Peoria is another matter altogether. So we're faced with a political dilemma. People like me (and I think you) have an ideal of someone (like Newt) who is both a big thinker, and able to articulate those thoughts (and, let's be honest here, Obama is NOT a big thinker. Just a big talker). Yet, the general populace is only interested in "connecting" or being able to feel like s/he's "one of us."
What a low bar we're seeing set. Truly sad.
However, you misunderestimate Bush, and Palin for that matter. There is something to also be said for those who can excel in the retail politics game. And, those two largely have. I may hate Bush as a standard-bearer, and I may cringe every time I hear Palin utter anything, but there is some appeal that makes those types very attractive candidates.
Many have fallen for the caricature of Palin. I find her very raw right now, but in 4 or 8 years, with study of the issues and some careful work on behalf of GOP candidates, could find her a very powerful force in the conservative movement.
5 comments:
Mr Klaus is not like American conservatives at all. The Czechs are Catholic and Catholicism is the State religion but the secular government offers free birth control and abortion on demand. There is no big movement to change that and it is a well supported policy.
Klaus, unlike the educationally and intellectually crippled American Right does not disbelieve that global warming exists. He denies the need to address it. This is a train of thought I myself subscribe to. Czechs could stand a few degrees of additional warmth, it's a cool country and often dreary.
Mr Klaus believes in free enterprise and small government. The two biggest spenders in modern times were Reagan and Bushie. Unlike them, Mr Klaus is an intelligent and well educated man. The American Right is characterized by deranged, snakehandling, glossalalian idiocy. The Bohemians are an enlightened and ambitious race. The most industrious in Europe.
That America sold these fine, proud people and so many others, into slavery at Yalta is a national disgrace on a par with the acceptance by the German people of the Nazi holocaust of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and intellectuals.
I agree with you, Red, that we sold out Eastern Europe. I disagree, as a member of the "Right" with your characterization of it. Maybe I'm wrong and am stupid as well.
I think he, at least, disputes that GW is man made.
Says Klaus:
“The theory of global warming and the hypothesis on its causes, which has spread around massively nowadays, may be a bad theory, it may also be a valueless theory, but in any case it is a very dangerous theory"
What Kraus says is not that global warming doesn't exist but that the imminent doomsday scenario espoused by people like Al Gore is a myth. He says that most of the damage is being done to the environment by undeveloped third World nations and that affluent, developed nations are in a better position to conserve and restore the World's resources than those struggling for basic subsistence.
Therefore, the best way to deal with the ecological crisis is to bring prosperity and development to as much of the World as possible, as quickly as possible. It is a pure neocon doctrine, without the unilateral foreign wars of aggression and genocide.
Kraus' thesis may or may not be true but at least it's an argument that a politician needn't be embarrassed to speak to. It might even appeal to an EU population, where societies are run on a secular basis and not by drooling, end of days, mouth breathers and their pedophile, meth head, clergy.
You are too used to the imbecilic ramblings of Bush/Palin and their ilk, to recognize a Rightist political argument that is salable to a target audience with greater than a fourth grade educational level. Instead of embracing the similarities that the Right in Europe and America enjoy, you should examine the differences and perhaps think about incorporating some of those differences into your home grown Rightist schtick. You could be winning elections again in no time.
I don't think you're stupid or even necessarily wrong, just dazed and left numb by the failings of the leadership available to your cause.
You need someone as smart as Newt but not a sexual deviate. Somebody strong like Dick Armey but not tempted by the easy money that power brings. Somebody as facile as Tom DeLay that doesn't foam and shrivel like a banana slut when sprinkled with a little salt.
Why don't you run for office?
Red,
You don't need to put words in my mouth, and you can think whatever you want about how I am used to the "imbecilic ramblings" of whoever. Having voted for Newt, and being somewhat of a disciple, this election (and 2000 and 2004) made me long for someone who could articulate a real conservative vision.
Whether that sells in Peoria is another matter altogether. So we're faced with a political dilemma. People like me (and I think you) have an ideal of someone (like Newt) who is both a big thinker, and able to articulate those thoughts (and, let's be honest here, Obama is NOT a big thinker. Just a big talker). Yet, the general populace is only interested in "connecting" or being able to feel like s/he's "one of us."
What a low bar we're seeing set. Truly sad.
However, you misunderestimate Bush, and Palin for that matter. There is something to also be said for those who can excel in the retail politics game. And, those two largely have. I may hate Bush as a standard-bearer, and I may cringe every time I hear Palin utter anything, but there is some appeal that makes those types very attractive candidates.
Many have fallen for the caricature of Palin. I find her very raw right now, but in 4 or 8 years, with study of the issues and some careful work on behalf of GOP candidates, could find her a very powerful force in the conservative movement.
Post a Comment