To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26477
26476  |  26478
Subject: 
Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:46:56 GMT
Viewed: 
711 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
Being against the war in Iraq does NOT mean being for Totalitarian Islam.

Or, why Kerry lost and why Michael Moore is still a weenie...

From The New Republic, specifically here:
"A Fighting Faith (AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM.) by Peter Beinart (editor
of TNR since 1999)

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=whKP5U%2BbbaxbirV9FQhQuh%3D%3D

"Moore views totalitarian Islam the way Wallace viewed communism: As a phantom,
a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right. Saudi
extremists may have brought down the Twin Towers, but the real menace is the
Carlyle Group. Today, most liberals naïvely consider Moore a useful ally, a
bomb-thrower against a right-wing that deserves to be torched. What they do not
understand is that his real casualties are on the decent left. When Moore
opposes the war against the Taliban, he casts doubt upon the sincerity of
liberals who say they opposed the Iraq war because they wanted to win in
Afghanistan first. When Moore says terrorism should be no greater a national
concern than car accidents or pneumonia, he makes it harder for liberals to
claim that their belief in civil liberties does not imply a diminished vigilance
against Al Qaeda."

Moveon.org responded to this but it's only available to subscribers which I am
not.

If the argument is that all liberals have no validity because of Michael Moore,
and therefore Kerry lost, why then hasn't every conservative lost because of the
Big Fat Lying Drug-Addict?  :-)

-->Bruce<--

League of Green-Eyed Devil's Advocates



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
 
(...) I can't speak to that question. It's not the argument I've made and I do not think that it's the argument that Peter (the New Republic editor) made either. I think rather he's making the argument to his own brethren that they are missing the (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
 
Being against the war in Iraq does NOT mean being for Totalitarian Islam. Or, why Kerry lost and why Michael Moore is still a weenie... From The New Republic, specifically here: "A Fighting Faith (AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM.) by Peter Beinart (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)  

4 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR