If Chaplin were alive today....

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

>>>Anyone who thinks that a brainless
>>>ideologue who lies his people into an
>>>unnecessary and wasteful war
>>>represents "moral values" is an idiot.



>>Virtually every word in that sentence
>>is false.

>You're living in a fantasy world, George.

A cheap, meaningless retort--to which I will reply in kind:

_Every word in that sentence is false
_except "who," "Into," "and" and "an."

I suppose I should elaborate, but that
would further politicize the group...which Moran began and you have
supported.

So don't you EVER bark at me when I
bring up ~Chaplin's~ social and
political views, you consummate
hypocrite!

And, anyway, I don't need to defend Bush, he won, it's over.

Read 'em and weep.

And see you in 2008.

>>>Any anyone who thinks that might makes
>>>right is a bigger idiot.

>>In this case, right makes might..

>The political right has plenty of might,
>But you're confusing two very different
>senses of "right."

Not in the slightest. Political and economic freedom empowers a nation
and results in the capacity to defend
those virtues on the battlefield if
necessary---and certainly in all other
venues as well.

The right of the individual to decide
how to live his life with maximum
liberty and with responsibility....the
essence of conservatism, as I see
it.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

George Shelps (G-HELPS@webtv.net) writes:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>>>Anyone who thinks that a brainless
>>>>ideologue who lies his people into an
>>>>unnecessary and wasteful war
>>>>represents "moral values" is an idiot.
>
>
>
>>>Virtually every word in that sentence
>>>is false.
>
>>You're living in a fantasy world, George.
>
> A cheap, meaningless retort

Just an observation. Conservatives have a
talent for staring facts in the face and
denying them, as for that matter do
Liberals on certain subjects.

But facts are facts--denying them won't
make them go away.


--to which I will reply in kind:
>
> _Every word in that sentence is false
> _except "who," "Into," "and" and "an."
>
> I suppose I should elaborate, but that
> would further politicize the group...which Moran began and you have
> supported.
>
> So don't you EVER bark at me when I
> bring up ~Chaplin's~ social and
> political views, you consummate
> hypocrite!

Hey, nobody's talking about Chaplin today, except as a sidelight--
you least of all.

Somehow I don't think he'd mind.


> And, anyway, I don't need to defend Bush, he won, it's over.
>
> Read 'em and weep.

I'd rather laugh. Can hardly wait for Michael Moore's next one.


> And see you in 2008.
>
>>>>Any anyone who thinks that might makes
>>>>right is a bigger idiot.
>
>>>In this case, right makes might..
>
>>The political right has plenty of might,
>>But you're confusing two very different
>>senses of "right."
>
> Not in the slightest. Political and economic freedom empowers a nation
> and results in the capacity to defend
> those virtues on the battlefield if
> necessary---and certainly in all other
> venues as well.
>
> The right of the individual to decide
> how to live his life with maximum
> liberty and with responsibility....the
> essence of conservatism, as I see
> it.

Pooh! I believe in that as much as you do,
but I'm no conservative.

Conservatives want freedom for themselves,
but not necessarily for others. Chaplin was
a victim of precisely that hypocrisy--
speaking of hypocrites.

Connie K.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
> "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
> __William Faulkner
>
>
>

--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

>Conservatives want freedom for
>themselves, but not necessarily for
>others. Chaplin was a victim of precisely
>that hypocrisy-- speaking of hypocrites.

I don't endorse what Truman and McGranery did to Chaplin, nor FDR
and his Justice Dept, but I will
continue to point out that both Presidents
were liberals, not conservatives.

And the issue isn't freedom alone,...
it's freedom with responsibility...ie
liberty...conservatives don't want
people to be free to plot
to fly jet airplanes into skyscrapers
and they don't other governments
to have the freedom to harbor
and arm such people...nor, on
the domestic front, the freedom
to dismantle long-established
positive cultural values because
they don't like them...such freedom
is irresponsible and immoral.

And your commitment to freedom
allows you to tolerate the total
politicization of this newsgroup--
when the topic is congenial
to you...and yet rant like a loon
when I or others in the past have
brought up Chaplin's political
extremism.

So you're a hypocrite of the first
magnitude here, and it is laughable
for you to scoff at conservatives
for wanting freedom for themselves
but denying it others.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

George Shelps (G-HELPS@webtv.net) writes:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>>Conservatives want freedom for
>>themselves, but not necessarily for
>>others. Chaplin was a victim of precisely
>>that hypocrisy-- speaking of hypocrites.
>
> I don't endorse what Truman and McGranery did to Chaplin, nor FDR
> and his Justice Dept, but I will
> continue to point out that both Presidents
> were liberals, not conservatives.

You're just playing with words, George. Most of the
people attacking Chaplin were far from liberal, and
postwar American attitudes, regardless of party, were
hin many respects the antithesis of liberal. The attacks
on Chaplin really began with _Dictator_. They were initiated
by isolationists, Nazi sympathizers, and anti-semites--
types that could hardly be considered liberal.

About all FDR "did" to Chaplin was invite him to read
the final speech from _Dictator_ at his inauguration.
That is a fact. Your attempts to implicate FDR in the
Mann Act prosecution have no factual basis.

> And the issue isn't freedom alone,...
> it's freedom with responsibility...ie
> liberty...conservatives don't want
> people to be free to plot
> to fly jet airplanes into skyscrapers
> and they don't other governments
> to have the freedom to harbor
> and arm such people...nor, on
> the domestic front, the freedom
> to dismantle long-established
> positive cultural values because
> they don't like them...such freedom
> is irresponsible and immoral.

So someone who disagrees with your
"long-established positive cultural
values" is irresponsible and should
have his freedom denied, right?

You can call any freedom *you*
don't like irresponsible, it seems.
But the only freedom that is truly
irresponsible is the freedom that
damages others. If someone challenges
your "long-established positive cultural
values," how are you harmed? If your
values are sound, they will be easily
defended. If they aren't sound, maybe
they need to be dismantled.


> And your commitment to freedom
> allows you to tolerate the total
> politicization of this newsgroup--
> when the topic is congenial
> to you...and yet rant like a loon
> when I or others in the past have
> brought up Chaplin's political
> extremism.

Only when you beat it to death, dearie.
Nobody's prevented you from repreatedly
airing your attacks on Chaplin.

> So you're a hypocrite of the first
> magnitude here, and it is laughable
> for you to scoff at conservatives
> for wanting freedom for themselves
> but denying it others.

You've frequently shown your disapproval
of expression you don't agree with, and
your approval of attempts to suppress it.

Who's the hypocrite? People can decide
that for themselves.

Connie K.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
> "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
> __William Faulkner
>
>
>

--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

>>>Conservatives want freedom for
>>>themselves, but not necessarily for
>>>others. Chaplin was a victim of
>>>precisely that hypocrisy-- speaking of
>>>hypocrites.

>>I don't endorse what Truman and
>>McGranery did to Chaplin, nor FDR and
>>his Justice Dept, but I will
>>continue to point out that both >>Presidents were liberals, not
>>conservatives.

>You're just playing with words, George.
>Most of the people attacking Chaplin
>were far from liberal, and postwar
>American attitudes, regardless of party,
>were hin many respects the antithesis of
>liberal.

Chaplin was a major public figure who
took controversial positions...and
if others disagreed, they had a right
to express it.

But when it came to the Barry prosecutions and the recission
of the re-entry permit, these were
official government actions taken
under liberal Presidents.

Even the local federal prosecutor in LA (Carr) was a Democrat.

>The attacks on Chaplin really began with
>_Dictator_. They were initiated by
>isolationists, Nazi sympathizers, and
>anti-semites-- types that could hardly be
>considered liberal.

I notice how you lump principled isolationists with Nazis...but attacks,
even by hate groups, are part of the
bear pit of controversy that Chaplin
~voluntarily~ entered.


>About all FDR "did" to Chaplin was invite
>him to read the final speech from
>_Dictator_ at his inauguration. That is a
>fact. Your attempts to implicate FDR in
>the Mann Act prosecution have no
>factual basis.

It was approved by his attorney general.

And it is well known that FDR incited
Hoover to focus on the left as well
as the right.

Do you blame Bush for Ashcroft's
actions? Of course you do.


>>And the issue isn't freedom alone,...
>>it's freedom with responsibility...ie
>>liberty...conservatives don't want
>>people to be free to plot
>>to fly jet airplanes into skyscrapers
>>and they don't other governments
>>to have the freedom to harbor
>>and arm such people...nor, on
>>the domestic front, the freedom
>>to dismantle long-established
>>positive cultural values because
>>they don't like them...such freedom
>>is irresponsible and immoral.

>So someone who disagrees with your
>"long-established positive cultural
>values" is irresponsible and should
>have his freedom denied, right?

No. But it is a destructive use of
freedom.


>You can call any freedom *you*
>don't like irresponsible, it seems.

If it destroys viable institutions,
or tries to, yes.


>But the only freedom that is truly
>irresponsible is the freedom that
>damages others. If someone challenges
>your "long-established positive cultural
>values," how are you harmed?

You obviously are a subjectivist if
you don't believe there's such a
thing as cultural harm.

>If your
>values are sound, they will be easily
>defended.

Hardly. It's always easier to
be destructive than to be virtuous.


> If they aren't sound, maybe
>they need to be dismantled.

Marriage as a union between
a man and a woman is not
"sound?"


>>And your commitment to freedom
>>allows you to tolerate the total
>>politicization of this newsgroup--
>>when the topic is congenial
>>to you...and yet rant like a loon
>>when I or others in the past have
>>brought up Chaplin's political
>>extremism.


>Only when you beat it to death, dearie.

By your standards. Others agreed with me.

Anyway, it was on topic...and all this
is not.


>Nobody's prevented you from repreatedly
>airing your attacks on Chaplin.

No one can prevent anything on
Usenet...but you've ranted about
it considerably in a bid to silence me.

>>So you're a hypocrite of the first
>>magnitude here, and it is laughable
>>for you to scoff at conservatives
>>for wanting freedom for themselves
>>but denying it others.

>You've frequently shown your
>disapproval of expression you don't
>agree with, and
your approval of attempts to suppress it.

That one again? I approve any legal
means of public protest and disapprove
of illegal means...so stop lying about
my views.

>Who's the hypocrite? People can decide
>that for themselves.


As long as you don't lie about me, yes.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

<< And, anyway, I don't need to defend Bush, he won, it's over.

Read 'em and weep.

And see you in 2008. >>


If "Merca" and the human race last that long.

Remember the fall of the Roman Empire? Sadly, I think we're headed that way -
with that third-rate John Wayne with his sh$#-eating grin leading the way.



"....a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts
is not a person you want as your commander in chief." - George W. Bush, finally
speaking the truth - October 2004
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today.... 

Burbank74 wrote:

>Remember the fall of the Roman
>Empire? Sadly, I think we're headed that
>way - with that third-rate John Wayne >with his sh$#-eating grin
leading the way.

I think you need to get out more.









__________________________________


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
__William Faulkner
 >> Stay informed about: If Chaplin were alive today....