Posted on 05/13/2006 6:53:00 AM PDT by A. Pole
Actually, at this time of the night, I am mainly bored.
I suspect there probably is some great, well researched information in your post, but my mind is too tired to try to follow such a marathon of thoughts.
Of coarse I know that I am just a "Joe six pack" so deep reading isn't much for me, but if you wish to convince us "Joes" I merely recomend a little condensing.
Sincerely
Michael Vlahos is an old school loony-left globalist from way back. It's makes sense that The American Conservative's bush-bashing Pat (Mercedes) Buchanan would have a Boston Globe lib write his feature essay.
Brigadeer drivel.
The writer apparently misunderstands the concept of empire. There is only evidence of empire in the minds of America haters....both left and right.
Substitute USA for Imperial Rome and this could be the kernel of a typical Friday sermon at any mosque in the world these days.
I was struck by Chesterton's assertion that there was a difference of substance between the paganism of Rome and the paganism of Carthage and fortunate for the world that Rome had won.
Men fight hardest when they feel that the foe is at once an old enemy and an eternal stranger, that his atmosphere is alien and antagonistic; as the French feel about the Prussian or the Eastern Christians about the Turk. If we say it is a difference of religion, people will drift into dreary bickerings about sects and dogmas. We will pity them and say it is a difference about death and daylight; a difference that does really come like a dark shadow between our eyes and the day. Men can think of this difference even at the point of death; for it is a difference about the meaning of life.
Men are moved in these things by something far higher and, holier than policy; by hatred. When men hung on in the darkest days of the Great War, suffering either in their bodies or in their souls for those they loved, they were long past caring about details of diplomatic objects as motives for their refusal to surrender. Of myself and those I knew best I can answer for the vision that made surrender impossible. It was the vision of the German Emperor's face as he rode into Paris. This is not the sentiment which some of my idealistic friends describe as Love. I am quite content to call it hatred; the hatred of hell and all its works, and to agree that as they do not believe in hell they need not believe in hatred.
You did not like the article so you attacked the author.
That way you show that you are not able to refute the content and that you consider other participants stupid.
Another faulty argument. If your enemies say that you are fat it does not mean you are skinny. In your opinion, how many people are stupid enough to fall for this trick?
Second question, you seem to know what is "typical Friday sermon at any mosque". Fascinating, could you tell something more?
It cannot be so. Populares were for the more economic equality and for social safety net. Optimates believed that the wealthy deserve their status.
The main reason why the potential Democratic base votes for the Republicans is that the Democratic leadership/or activist core is taken over by the passionate pursuit of secularism, abortion, and sexual deviation (in hope of creating a new happy type of a human being).
The main stream population is conservative in social/moral matters while left-leaning in matters of economic equality and safety net. Apparently the voters put the moral principle above material interest and become so called Reagan Democrats voting for the Republican party. Democratic leaders are not capable to comprehend this choice but Republicans clearly are.
Even if the Democratic politicians are blind to it, it is enough that one of their leaders figures that out and he will use this opening to offer another FDR style platform combined with rejection of decadent libertinism. Tomorrow they will concentrate greater power than FDR could dream about (BTW it is because of FDR that the Twenty-second Amendment of the US Constitution was put in place.)
Both GWB and Caesar came from wealthy elite families however.
This is not so relevant. Both parties have rich people as they had in Rome.
Just like with you A. Pole, we like to know the source of anti-American garbage like this article. It tells us a great deal about what motivates their anti-capitalist ranting. There is no need to refute the content if the author is a lefty American hating moonbat since these folks are only concerned with bashing our president, obtaining and maintaining power, and have little regard for the truth.
There is no need to call anyone stupid. That fact is eminently self-evident given the content of their posts.
I am unclear on which 'trick' is the subject of your question.
Second question, you seem to know what is "typical Friday sermon at any mosque". Fascinating, could you tell something more?
Something more? What would you like to know? I only know what I read, hear and see through the media, not through personal experience of many, many Friday sermons.
You're right. I hadn't argued with the essay because I didn't want to bore anyone. Instead I ended up insulting my host and for that I apologize. Here's my rebuttal; but first we've got to condense this pompous and long-winded rant. The entire seven pages boils down to just two points:
The United States was corrupted into a "passage from republic to empire". America is not conquering other people and setting up colonies. This is hyperbolic overkill. OK, Viahos changed the definition of empire to mean just any administration led by a personality. Fine; let me change definitions all over the place and I can say Buchanan is a child molester. I won't because words mean things and Viahos is wrong.
It's Bush's fault --he exploited a "single.. ...flamboyant" attack on 9/11. Outrageous. September 11 was four heinous (not 'flamboyant') attacks that killed thousands and cost billions. It was the latest of decades of attacks; all part of a declared war. Some people don't think Bush is overreacting. A lot of people (including me) here have good reason to say Bush should be more aggressive.
Pacifists like Viahos and Buchanan may mean well, but they end up getting more people killed than warriors do.
The "social safety net" is of the lower class, not the middle class.
The upper class is linked to the lower class as the nobility is linked to the bondsmen/servant of ancient times. A patron-client relationship for the purpose of mutual advantage.
The middle class is a different matter entirely. They seek equality, freedom and power in their own right.
Think of the contemporary phrase "plantation politics". 90% of blacks, especially poor blacks, vote for the Democrats. They are the clients of powerful Democrats.
Excerpt from my previous link-----Average Joe is a Republican
So we're in an interesting new era. The Right has become a thinking party, with rich intellectual resources, that is simultaneously dead-set against political elitism and cultural snobbery. In many past issues of The American Enterprise we've described how conservatism has laid claim to America's quiet but multitudinous middle class. Now in this issue we look at the other side of the political spectrum: at how the Left has come to dominate among the overclass and underclass that bracket the conservative middle.
The old way of thinking about U.S. politics--little-guy Democrats vs. wealthy Republicans--is about as accurate and relevant today as a 1930 weather forecast. New fronts have moved in. Expect some exciting squalls ahead.
So was in ancient Roman Republic. But gradually the wealthy took over most of resources and Roman middle class (independent peasants and craftsmen) were reduced to the lower class status.
Extreme stratification is not compatible with the republican system.
Matthias Gelzer 1921 book "Caesar Politician and Statesman" has it's first chapter entitled "The Political World" which describes the power relations during the Republican era. The first chapter is available online at Amazon.com.
History is getting twisted around here like definitions were in the article. The Roman republic was run by Patricians, the heads of the wealthiest of the wealthy familes. It lasted for centuries but Caesar staged what was essentially a military coup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.