Are there conservatives here who think the past, maybe post WWII to the mid - to late 50s, was actually the best time of the last century for the United States?
I get the feeling with this Ann Coulter book and other less visible rumblings through the Body Politic, that that is the time where conservatives really think the US was in its golden period.
I think that evry era in American history had it's good and bad points. Socially I think that era was more simple yet less enlightened when it came to issues of race, women etc. So in that aspect it wasn't very good. I think values were perhaps a little less ambigious. (see there I go again with those simple black and white issues, I'm Hitler! or is it Reagan,? ask Berkely) I think it was also a more naive time when it came to the world and government. In general though it was a fairly prosperous time but with some mistakes and areas of improvement needed. In some aspects I think things were simpler, we didn't have cell phones, e-mail etc. People actually spoke to their neighbors and knew them, we didn't text message we had a conversation and even wrote letters. Most families sat down for dinner together.
So like all era's it had it's positives and negatives. Are we happier today with all the useless crap we buy ? Probably not. Are we happier that now both spouses work and our kids are raised by a daycare worker ? Probably not. Are we better off in areas of murder and violent crime ? No, are we better off when it comes to values ? I know it's a word liberalls hate but I think people had more of a sense of community and decency in some aspects. Are we better off on race and gender issues ? Absolutley. Are we better off ? hard to say, it's too broad of an issue.
In short it would be great if we could go back to each era and take the good from them, dump the bad and have a better world. All you can do is learn from history and any mistakes and adapt to change. Billy Joel said it best when he said. "You know the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
Perhaps you misread it or misquoted it intentionally.
Are we better today as a society on race and gender issues than we were in the 50's ? I think so, maybe you don't. I didn't say it was perfect either but progress has been made.
Are we better today as a society on race and gender issues than we were in the 50's ? I think so, maybe you don't. I didn't say it was perfect either but progress has been made.
all I said was it would depend on your race or gender, as well as your personal social and political belief system for that matter.
Perhaps you misread it or misquoted it intentionally.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised."
I was going to stay out of this, but it seems the debate is still raging, here.
I think the prime example was the reaction of the conservatives here to the comparison of Reagan to Hitler but in a very narrow aspect.
They didn't say that Reagan was Stone Evil like Hitler. That would be ridiculous. They only said that they shared a visiion of an idealized past. I don't know enough about Hitler to say if that's accurate, but I assume they've compiled evidence that Hitler sought the glory of Germany's past. From what I've read or seen, he reached far back into Teutonic history for symbolism. That makes sense to me.
I don't think there are many who would disagree that that apsect was a very real part of the Reagan persona. The 60s and 70s were fresh in everyone's mind and Carter was definately seen as the Bringer of the Malaise. And Americans sure didn't want to hear that, as a nation, we should re-evaluate our values and our role in the world. .
Reagan was seen in a cheery Rockwell-esque light, which sold well. The man was an actor in the 40s.' In the 80s, he was a grandfatherly figure that evoked another simpler era. Hated the commies. He was ready-made for the time.
He was seen as the Great Communicator, because his message was simple and unambiguous.
Reading more books from the Dennis collection eh ? Seen any black helicopters lately ?
Iraq has been a policy issue for 12 years. We've had to have troops in Saudi for that exact purpose. We've spent billions protecting the no-fly zone so Kurds didn't get wiped off the map.
The claims made in the SOTU are a desparate grab at straws. Very desparate in fact. The vote for going in was months befor the SOTU. It's a political witchhunt that will backfire. Howard Dean wondered if Iraq really was better off without Saddamn in power. If that's your presidential front runner, good luck to you. You'll need it.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised."
Well, that would be better than doing something stupid and rash ala liberal thinking.
this bogus study by biased liberal professors so close-minded and arrogant that they don't even realize their findings were predetermined by their ideological prejudices speaks loudly to their tunnel-vision simplicity.
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.
So defending and preserving your country and your way of life is strictly a conservative trait? I guess Ann Coulter is right -- liberals hate America and want to see it fall.
if someone said that a vegetarian is similar to Hitler in that they both have a similar diet, they would be correct.
Hitler and Norman Rockwell are alike in that they both painted pictures.
No, there is no need to make such comparisons at all. I am sure Norman Rockewell wouldn't have appreciated it. Why can't you liberals consider other people's feelings?
No, there is no need to make such comparisons at all.
when you write your dissertation on leberals and you omit Hitler, then you can decide it wasn't needed...otherwise, they ain't your words so you don't get to decide what is or isn't needed.
I don't think there is any need for you to mention that you want to throw drug users in jail, but there it is...regardless of what I think is or is not needed.
THX 1138 7/25/03 1:06pm
Sad but true.
BTW JT, you're just like Hitler, I know you didn't know that but you are. Now you're going to disneyland !
The little Austrian had many sides.
Have you seen that movie, about Hitler as a painter after WWI?
It was pretty good. I can't recall the title right now, but John Cusack was in it.
Have you seen that movie, about Hitler as a painter after WWI?
Historic note: I think it was more that he was a painter before WWI.
I think you're right.
It was a work of fiction.
I enjoyed it.
Are there conservatives here who think the past, maybe post WWII to the mid - to late 50s, was actually the best time of the last century for the United States?
I get the feeling with this Ann Coulter book and other less visible rumblings through the Body Politic, that that is the time where conservatives really think the US was in its golden period.
Rick,
I think that evry era in American history had it's good and bad points. Socially I think that era was more simple yet less enlightened when it came to issues of race, women etc. So in that aspect it wasn't very good. I think values were perhaps a little less ambigious. (see there I go again with those simple black and white issues, I'm Hitler! or is it Reagan,? ask Berkely) I think it was also a more naive time when it came to the world and government. In general though it was a fairly prosperous time but with some mistakes and areas of improvement needed. In some aspects I think things were simpler, we didn't have cell phones, e-mail etc. People actually spoke to their neighbors and knew them, we didn't text message we had a conversation and even wrote letters. Most families sat down for dinner together.
So like all era's it had it's positives and negatives. Are we happier today with all the useless crap we buy ? Probably not. Are we happier that now both spouses work and our kids are raised by a daycare worker ? Probably not. Are we better off in areas of murder and violent crime ? No, are we better off when it comes to values ? I know it's a word liberalls hate but I think people had more of a sense of community and decency in some aspects. Are we better off on race and gender issues ? Absolutley. Are we better off ? hard to say, it's too broad of an issue.
In short it would be great if we could go back to each era and take the good from them, dump the bad and have a better world. All you can do is learn from history and any mistakes and adapt to change. Billy Joel said it best when he said. "You know the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
sorta depends on your race and gender
crabgrass 7/25/03 3:09pm
Perhaps you misread it or misquoted it intentionally.
Are we better today as a society on race and gender issues than we were in the 50's ? I think so, maybe you don't. I didn't say it was perfect either but progress has been made.
all I said was it would depend on your race or gender, as well as your personal social and political belief system for that matter.
I fail to see how I did either.
crabgrass 7/25/03 3:16pm
That's fine I just wanted to clarify what you were saying.
I happen to think we've made progress in some areas since 1950 when it comes to race, gender.
I'm sure some don't feel that way, it's all subjective I guess and a matter of opinion.
Have a good weekend.
"I know it's a word liberalls hate but I think people had more of a sense of community and decency in some aspects. "
What word do we hate? -- decency? My. I haven't heard anyone come out against decency.
It seems to me that conservatives of today are the ones who have little use for community. They prefer being a loose gathering of individuals.
And your saying there's something wrong with that?
I'm just sayin' what I'm sayin'.
yep...the posters 'round these parts sure do go a long way towards verifying those Berkley findings
Then obviously you aint sayin much.
obviously
yep...the posters 'round these parts sure do go a long way towards verifying those Berkley findings
I think you're saying a lot about yourself with these posts.
yet more validation for the study...those Berkley folks sure are smart
Wasnt Berkley the name of that big ass stupid dog on Sesame Street?
Why is that validation, Crabby?
That didn't answer my question.
What in specific has been said by "conservatives" here that verifies these findings, and how?
the intolerace of ambiguity...the clinging to the familiar...the premature conclusions...the simplistic cliches and stereotypes
you got your answer...sorry if it was too ambiguous.
It's slimey work like that that gets Republicans elected.
Now go play somewhere else little boy.
simplistic, premature conclusion
intolerance
You're right, Crabby.
Enlighten me.
I was going to stay out of this, but it seems the debate is still raging, here.
I think the prime example was the reaction of the conservatives here to the comparison of Reagan to Hitler but in a very narrow aspect.
They didn't say that Reagan was Stone Evil like Hitler. That would be ridiculous. They only said that they shared a visiion of an idealized past. I don't know enough about Hitler to say if that's accurate, but I assume they've compiled evidence that Hitler sought the glory of Germany's past. From what I've read or seen, he reached far back into Teutonic history for symbolism. That makes sense to me.
I don't think there are many who would disagree that that apsect was a very real part of the Reagan persona. The 60s and 70s were fresh in everyone's mind and Carter was definately seen as the Bringer of the Malaise. And Americans sure didn't want to hear that, as a nation, we should re-evaluate our values and our role in the world. .
Reagan was seen in a cheery Rockwell-esque light, which sold well. The man was an actor in the 40s.' In the 80s, he was a grandfatherly figure that evoked another simpler era. Hated the commies. He was ready-made for the time.
He was seen as the Great Communicator, because his message was simple and unambiguous.
So I'm suppose to tolerate the ambigious???...Why???
Have you tolerated anything you didn't want to tolerate, torpedo?
That's an answer to the question?
that's a bit of a familiar, premature conclusion, don't cha think? perhaps some simplistic cliches and stereotypes would help here.
OK, how about this one...You certainly seem to know all about "premature".
There's a new bumber sticker to counter the "What Would Welllstone Do" stickers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-07-25-wellstone-bumperstickers_x.htm
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1752/4008067.html
Reading more books from the Dennis collection eh ? Seen any black helicopters lately ?
Iraq has been a policy issue for 12 years. We've had to have troops in Saudi for that exact purpose. We've spent billions protecting the no-fly zone so Kurds didn't get wiped off the map.
The claims made in the SOTU are a desparate grab at straws. Very desparate in fact. The vote for going in was months befor the SOTU.
It's a political witchhunt that will backfire. Howard Dean wondered if Iraq really was better off without Saddamn in power. If that's your presidential front runner, good luck to you. You'll need it.
"There's a new bumber sticker to counter the "What Would Welllstone Do" stickers."
I don't understand. Why do people feel the need to "counter" someone's sentiment. They can feel the way they want. What's the problem?
It's just a bumper sticker. Putting a WWWD sticker is a personal decision as is the correct time remove it.
We don't have any bumper stickers. But I don't care what someone else does.
Speaking of Dennis
Just in case you had forgotten we are at the same level as the terrorists and we are just plain naughty in general.
BTW Rick,
The next time someone compares you to Hitler I guess you shouldn't get upset since it might just be a narrow comparison.
What would Rick say if someone compared Wellstone to Mao, Lenin or Stalin?
Well, that would be better than doing something stupid and rash ala liberal thinking.
Get off the bus, Rick.
That's my decision to make, thank you.
this bogus study by biased liberal professors so close-minded and arrogant that they don't even realize their findings were predetermined by their ideological prejudices speaks loudly to their tunnel-vision simplicity.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20030726.shtml
Rick, Does ambiguity frighten you? Do you long for the "Good old days"?.....
Here's the part I like:
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.
So defending and preserving your country and your way of life is strictly a conservative trait? I guess Ann Coulter is right -- liberals hate America and want to see it fall.
"I guess Ann Coulter is right -- Liberals hate America and want to see it fall."
This gets sillier every time I read it. When do the charges of treason end? Treason is a serious charge.
How long is the list of traitors Muskwa? How fast is is growing?
Since ya'll are resurrecting Joe McCarthy you need List for him.
It all starts with a List.
Sounds like Rick is clinging to the familiar, arriving at premature conclusions, and imposing simplistic cliches and stereotypes.
if someone said that a vegetarian is similar to Hitler in that they both have a similar diet, they would be correct.
Hitler and Norman Rockwell are alike in that they both painted pictures.
you have to qualify these things.
and I believe the study did that.
if someone said that a vegetarian is similar to Hitler in that they both have a similar diet, they would be correct.
Hitler and Norman Rockwell are alike in that they both painted pictures.
No, there is no need to make such comparisons at all. I am sure Norman Rockewell wouldn't have appreciated it. Why can't you liberals consider other people's feelings?
which other people are those?
and when you you shown the least concern for other people's feelings, bodine?
when you write your dissertation on leberals and you omit Hitler, then you can decide it wasn't needed...otherwise, they ain't your words so you don't get to decide what is or isn't needed.
I don't think there is any need for you to mention that you want to throw drug users in jail, but there it is...regardless of what I think is or is not needed.