Subject:
|
Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:44:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
678 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> 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? :-)
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 point, that if they are not careful they will be aiding and abetting the
totalitarians, (a bad thing, don't you agree) rather than thwarting the neo-cons
machinations.
I think the article bears a bit more detailed study than I'm inferring you have
given it... I think it's making rather a deep point with his parallels to the
early post war changes in focus that led to the formation of the ADA.
I am not sure I necessarily agree with everything it says but I found it quite
thought provoking.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
