glynch -- again...refman didn't post this saying, "speilberg says we should do it...so we should!" he's not saying that at all...just saying he found it interesting... achebe - actually, i find the way the traditionally democratic jews in this country are supporting bush like crazy to be interesting in and of itself...i posted an article here the other day about which only glynch responded to regarding the paradigm shift among many jewish democrats and how that is butting up against african-american democrats...if speilberg is merely a part of that, i find that interesting...sorry if it doesn't interest you...for someone so uninterested, you sure seem to be posting a good deal in such an uninteresting thread!
Originally posted by glynch ...Would your first reaction be "you know he probably knows more than other Americans about whether Iraq has these weapons and is an imminent danger since his parents, say, have are from the Middle East and he has relatives there." I doubt it. You're right, I wouldn't. But it's not because of your assumption, it's because I think that the dissidents who have left the country were in better positions to determine what Iraq has available to it, than someone's family members who live there. Don't go making assumptions about who I will listen to and why. Years ago, I spent a fair amount of time discussing what happened to a Palestinian co-worker's family and their ancestral property back in Israel. I had a Jewish co-worker who had lived in Israel and told me that the 'Palestinians don't think like you and I'. I'm almost afraid to ask you who you think I empathized with. It's clear that once you have 'branded' someone, in your mind all of their opinions must abide by your specific characterization. It's annoying.
Originally posted by Jeff ...But, since we are on the topic of being dismissive, isn't it POSSIBLE that liberals follow the events in the middle east and understand that there may be ramifications beyond what we can see in the short term if we decide to invade Iraq without the backing of the international community? Yes, quite possible. No, must just be their emotional or irrational support of peace...ignore 'm. See how easy that can be turned around? Doesn't turn anything around on me. I don't discount Democrat's opinions on this topic, and I don't even dismiss that the Democrats' viewpoint isn't best in the long-term. In fact, if there really is no immediate threat, the Democrats are clearly in the right, IMO. Your comment sounded dismissive to me; thanks for clarifying.
Achebe, Thanks. I was hoping my response would be understood. I don't deny people will have certain biases. When I was younger, I had a simple bias based on my ancestry. Or should I say, based on my more recent ancestry? No offense to anyone's beliefs, but I feel that the ethnicity or religion we ended up with in life matters little to God. We are all humans. After we leave this brief life, and brief it is, we will have no ethnicity or religion for the rest of eternity. I would feel offended that after much contemplation and careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that war with Iraq was necessary, it would somehow be discounted, dismissed or denigrated because of my surname. It's tantamount to telling me 'you have a little, earthbound mind that cannot comprehend past your childhood'.
Originally posted by Achebe Oh yeah, and most liberals support the environment because they're smarter than everyone else. ... kidding kidding? Ever read Rush Limbaugh on the environment?
Refman thought he'd never see this; others aren't surprised. Am I getting this straight? Seems pretty simple to me. And who are those people in the last paragraph of the article? I'm not familiar with them (except Brian Eno).
glynch...get off your soapbox. Time and again I told you that I found it INTERESTING. My post was not an endorsement of Spielberg's views on this topic. It was a conversation piece. In response...your analogy is horribly flawed. Spielberg has never lived in Israel and has no known family or friends in Israel. As a matter of fact if you'll bother to listen to what he said...he said that he believes that the President has better and more complete information. He ADMITTED to not knowing the facts. His statement was merely to defer to those with the information. Of course this does not fit into the neat little conceptual boxes you have constructed so I doubt you'll be able to do much with this other than to misinterpret my post (whether intentional or not I don't know) yet again.
Here they go again? They all have the same readily recognizable Bush Republican opinions, but they all agree that they are neutral fact finders without a political ideology, unlike their liberal opponent(s) who are sooooo ideological. What would they do if asked to be on Crossfire?, Decline because they can't decide which side to sit on? I don't think so.
