ampage
Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!

 
Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  
  View Thread

Follow-up - civil discourse-long

5/4/2005 2:00 PM
PatFollow-up - civil discourse-long
A while back I posted a reply to someone's comment referring to the George Bush as an asshole. I took acception mostly beause I thought it was unfortunate since, IMO, people can disagree without resorting to profanity and name calling. I said that it was a trend I'd seen, and I inferred that it might be "sour grapes" on the part of those who didn't vote for Bush. There was alot of feedback to my statements, and I read them, but was a bit overwhelmed by the response, and did not reply.  
 
Some of the responses went way off on a tangent, one fellow saying Bush is more corrupt than Nixon was, another asking what Bush was doing about North Korea, etc.. This happens frequently when openly conservative folks like myself assert their opinions and suggest that perhaps the president is doing a good job, is not a power mad religious nut who got his position because of some dark conspiracy, and really does have the good of the country in mind.  
 
Today a news item... http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2005/05/04/TopStories/Arrest.Made.At.Coulter.Speech-947529.shtml  
 
cause me to post this follow up as best I can, comment on some of the comments that had nothing to do with my original statement.  
 
In the last year, Bill Crystal, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz, Ann Coulter made news because they were subject to some kind of attack at public appearances. I believe there were others,they just come to mind because they are prominent conservatives. That isn't an epidemice, maybe not even a trend. But it is a fact. Most of these incidents occured at universities. I recently retired from an institution of higher learning after 20 years there. Being a conservative there can be a liability career wise. That is just a fact in the education field. I bit my tongue alot, took my money, and left. I wasn't an adminstrator or faculty, so it was easier for me to be myself, but I still had to be cautious about what I said.  
 
My daughter, who recently received her degree from a major university, withdrew from an art history class because the professor spent most of his time ranting about how evil George Bush was. She filed a complaint and it went unanswered. My son will be attending a major university soon. I've spoken to him on a number of occassions about how his values and beliefs will be challanged and even ridiculed, should he be brave enough to let them be known, by some of his professors. His views, may in some cases, be reflected in his grades. So, nobody here can lecture to me about "academic freedom". Academic freedom is only for the academic elite, and the academic elite is composed mostly of very left leaning liberals. You can express your views if they are contrary, but you have to be willing to pay the price. I think the fact that prominant conservatives speaking at major universities can count on some type of incident to disrupt their appeance is consistant with the views of those who run the universities, including public universities using public monies. Kinda like PBS.  
 
As for taking a "high moral ground" as I think one person said about my dislike of profanity. I use profanity on occassion. Usually when I do something stupid like scald my arm with a heat gun, or when my senile dog digs up the new flowers I planted an hour earlier, or someone talking on a cell phone, eating a big mac and trying to drive a car cuts me off in traffic. Guilty as charged. But, I just think in the arena of public debate, it isn't necessary to do it when referring to public figures.  
 
I might be able to have a civil conversation with Bill Clinton, should the opportunity present itself. We might even have something in common (we both have a daughter). Aside from that, I believe, during his term in office, he did serious damage to our nation's security and credibility, not to mention the fact that he was impeached, he lied under oath and he was barred from practicing law, among a long list of other disreputable things he did on his watch. I believe that his paring down sizing of our armed forces and intelligence services was reckless and irresponsible. That's all I have to say. History speaks for itself.  
 
As for Bush being more corrupt than Nixon. Nixon had some personality quirks. He lied about Watergate, was caught in the lie and paid the price for it. Those who say he shouldn't have been pardoned by Ford can only do so consistantly if they agree that Clinton should have gone to jail for lying under oath. On the other hand, Nixon got us out of Vietnam, restored diplomatic relations with China, and ended the military draft.  
 
On Bush being corrupt. If there were evidence for a fraction of the allegations out there, he'd have been gone a long time ago. The liberal elite control most of the major media outlets in this country, network, cable and print. They are not sympathetic to Bush (remember Dan Rather?), you subscribe to any number of vast right wing conspiracy theories.  
 
As for talk radio, as some else suggested. Yes, I listen to all the big names from time to time. I even tune in to Air America, with Al Franken, et al. They are getting hard to find on the dial, but I check them out from time to time. The thing about conservative talk radio is, they don't pretend to be reporting news. The are very opinionated, and openly so. Based on the continuing popularity of talk radio, apparently there are many people who share their views. For many years most people, myself included, relied on CBS, NBC and ABC for the news, assuming that is what they were getting. Talk radio took off when a growing number of people realized that TV networks and the big papers, New York and LA Times, had drifted from reporting the news, and had become cover to cover editorial pages. That is an exageration of course, but their reporting of news had long ago lost any sense of objectivity. They are being run by the same people who ran ROTC off the campuses in the 60's.  
 
And a closing comment on North Korea. Anyone who would like to discuss that topic with me is more than welcome to. I'm not foriegn policy expert, but I did spend several years in South Korea, hope to travel there next year, and am fairly well read on the recent history of the Korean peninsula.  
 
I think it would be great if we could just go over their, push the North Korean Army into the Yellow Sea, unify the peninsula, and bring all our troops home leaving Korea to live happily ever after. It sounds simple, but it's not. There are plenty of current books out there on the topic. If you are interested, I suggest you read up on it. We are in the current predicament we are in now because the Clinton administration didn't know how to handle North Korea in the early months of Clinton's first term. Carter went over there on his own, and diffused the situation (we were really close to war) we negotiated with the North Koreans, and they didn't follow through on their end of the bargain. We believed them and they lied.  
 
People are talking about how Bush is going to start WWIII. They said the same thing about Reagan, and he brought down the Berlin wall and ended the cold war.  
 
Have a nice day

 
Replies:
mod :)... -- 5/4/2005 2:52 PM
anonymous "...George Bush as an asshole..." -- 5/4/2005 2:58 PM
Steve B.
So what’s your point here Pat? Wi... -- 5/4/2005 10:02 PM
Enzo Well, Pat, I made the Nixon referen... -- 5/5/2005 12:46 AM
Rob Mercure Dear Pat,Just a qui... -- 5/5/2005 5:18 AM
Doug H Perhaps the thing that should be di... -- 5/5/2005 9:30 AM
Mark Hammer I have 15 years of university teach... -- 5/5/2005 11:07 AM
Carl S. Pat -An interesting... -- 5/5/2005 2:13 PM
Fiesty Fiester Pat, thank you for sharing your mos... -- 10/7/2005 2:31 PM